Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the Government’s supposed intention for the Bill, but is he aware that Amanda Spielman, the former Ofsted chief inspector, said that this Bill was “very likely” to have a detrimental effect on children’s education?

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That point was made in the consultation I had before this debate.

To continue, the Bill proposes wellbeing co-ordinators, structured mental health assessments and greater collaboration with community health services to embed wellbeing alongside literacy and numeracy as part of what every school must nurture. These are noble aims. Heaven knows, if a child is struggling mentally, they are not going to learn very much about trigonometry, are they?

We must approach the issues that campaigners have with the Bill. Previous Governments have spent decades giving academies and trusts more and more control, only for this Government to take it away again. Sometimes the best way to support wellbeing is to give schools freedom, not more top-down rules. In some instances, an attempt to standardise pay would mean giving our teachers in academies pay cuts. School groups have emphasised to me that the importance of local decision making cannot be underestimated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I begin by thanking the petition organiser and all who engaged with it. Like many colleagues from across the House, I entered politics because I wanted to make sure that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, had the opportunity to have the best start in life. I am sure that that is also the motivation for the majority of those who signed the petition, even if we might disagree that the Bill represents positive progress. Although the petition primarily addresses the school reform aspects of the Bill, it is important to underscore the significant child protection measures it contains that would be lost if the Bill were withdrawn as the petition proposes.

The measures broadly enjoy cross-party support and have been developed following what we have learned when things have gone tragically wrong. One of the most significant protections is the introduction of a single unique identifier for every child, an innovation that will transform how we monitor and safeguard children throughout their educational journey. With a unique identifier, schools, social services, the NHS and other agencies can securely share essential information, ensuring that no child slips through the cracks. Instead of scattering attendance records, safeguarding concerns and progress across disconnected systems, this approach brings everything together. For a child at risk, perhaps moving between schools or facing hardship at home, this identifier becomes a vital thread linking their past experiences to the support they need today.

Time after time, when a serious case review occurs and the resultant review looks at how it could have been prevented, featuring in there somewhere will be poor communication and a failure to connect the dots between agencies. The unique identifier is a key step towards preventing that from happening. Safeguarding cannot happen in silos. That is why the Bill creates multi-agency child protection teams, bringing together professionals from education, health, social services, mental health, housing and law enforcement. When the teams work collaboratively, risks are identified earlier and responses are more effective. For children living in unstable homes, struggling with mental health challenges or at risk of neglect, the joined-up approach can become life changing.

Safeguarding is only part of the ambition, however. True wellbeing depends not just on safety, but on opportunity. That is why the Bill also focuses on raising standards and strengthening support across schools. When education and wellbeing work hand in hand, every child has the chance to thrive academically and personally. The mission that lies at the heart of the Bill is to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. I believe that part 2 is fundamental to that mission. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is welcome to intervene.

School reform is about creating the conditions for success. The introduction of regional improvement for standards and excellence teams will lead efforts to improve attendance and behaviour. The teams will provide the expertise and focus needed to tackle persistent challenges and support schools in creating environments where every child can flourish. The clear expectation is that schools employ qualified teachers and teach the national curriculum. Those are the foundations of a high quality education system, ensuring that every child, wherever they live, has access to excellent teaching and a broad, balanced curriculum.

Academy reform is about clarity and accountability. We have seen trusts that deliver exceptional support, helping schools raise standards and share expertise effectively. But we have also seen cases where that support has been absent, where performance has declined and communities have had little influence over improvement. The current system has grown fragmented and inconsistent. Structures alone do not guarantee success. What matters is the quality of teaching, the leadership and the support a child receives at home. The reforms will restore coherence and ensure that every school is part of a system focused on outcomes, not organisational labels. It is time to move beyond debates about governance and put standards at the heart of the conversation.

Other measures tackle barriers to learning head-on. Free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school will ensure no child starts the day hungry. Limiting branded items in school uniforms will ease cost of living pressures and promote inclusion.

[Gregory Stafford]

On the point about branded school uniforms, headteachers in my constituency have often bulk bought school uniforms through a supplier, so it can be more cost-effective to buy the uniform through the branded supplier than to buy it on the high street. Surely what the hon. Gentleman suggests could have a perverse outcome. Does he not think that if branded items can be bought at a cheaper cost, they would be better than buying off the peg?

[Andrew Cooper]

That is an interesting approach; it is a shame that has not been rolled out more widely. That is not the experience in the schools in my constituency. Across the population, the measures in the Bill will reduce costs for all. That is my view; the hon. Gentleman is welcome to his.

In short, the Bill is about ensuring that every child is safe, supported and given the chance to succeed. To withdraw it would be to turn away from that vision. Instead, we must commit to a future in which protection and education go hand in hand and no child is left behind.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this important debate.

Home education is often misunderstood. Some dismiss it as children avoiding education. Others portray it as an isolating environment, and even a potential safeguarding risk. Although that may be the case in the smallest handful of instances, the reality is that the large proportion of home educating families are those who have been let down by the state education system and act in the best interest of their child. For them, home education is not the easy choice but, often, a lifeline—a vital alternative for children who do not “fit” within the confines of mainstream schooling.

Families turn to home education for many reasons. We might be talking about children who have medical needs or anxiety and have been pressured out of school, those excluded because of unmet special educational needs, or those enduring unresolved bullying. Some parents make a philosophical choice to educate outside the mainstream system. This discretionary right, exercised by parents and guardians, allows learning to be flexible, personalised and responsive.

Taking away the option to home school through a poorly designed policy that fails to recognise the context and individuality of each home education journey is yet another example of the Government refusing to listen to communities they do not understand. We saw that with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief for farmers, and we saw it with the unjustified housing targets imposed on rural communities. We now see it again—this time with thousands of home educators’ pleas being ignored.

Despite the Government’s unwillingness to listen, I have had the pleasure of meeting numerous constituents and campaigners to discuss the potential impact of the flawed Bill and to listen to their individual stories. One has a child with Down syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and another who is autistic, with global developmental delays and dyslexia. They were overwhelmed and dysregulated by the one-size-fits-all design of the school system, but now they are home educated and can truly thrive in a personalised learning environment.

Another person I met has a child with ADHD, autism and dyslexia who was severely bullied in two separate schools, leading to serious mental health struggles. For the wellbeing of both the child and the wider family, the child had to be removed from school and is now home educated and safe from ever enduring that traumatic experience again. Those are just two families among the thousands who have exercised their discretionary right to home educate their children in their and their family’s best interest.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining the situations in which his constituents find themselves, as mine do in many cases. Is he as concerned as I am that mandatory registration for home education essentially risks treating every parent as a potential safeguarding concern, rather than recognising the fact that they are doing their absolute best for their children? They absolutely want to comply with the law and should not be treated as criminals in the first instance.

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend demonstrates the perverse reality of what is proposed, in that these parents and children are often seeking to break away from being a one-size-fits-all family, but they are being pushed into a one-size-fits-all approach that risks stigmatising home education and the very children who benefit from it.

Importantly, in the instances that I have cited, both families will be adversely affected should the Bill progress to further stages in its current state. As many home educators have argued, the Government, schools and local authorities are not the ones witnessing the emotional breakdowns before and after school. They are not the ones being forced to watch their children’s health deteriorate because of unsuitable environments. They are not the ones supporting them at medical appointments or sitting up with them late at night.

A decision to home educate is not often taken lightly. Parents and guardians weigh up the benefits and consequences of all education options. If, after that careful deliberation, a parent or guardian, who knows their children best, chooses to take the leap into home education and provides a safe, stable and nurturing environment, they should be free to continue with that choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this really important debate. My feelings are very much aligned with the around 300 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the heart of this debate is a fallacy: that children are more at risk in home educating families than they are at school. In fact, the figures show the exact opposite. I will come back to that point in detail.

My concerns are about not only home educating families but rural schools and rural environments, where the limited resources mean that the Bill’s more onerous requirements on schools could drive some smaller rural schools out of the system and lead to them being closed. Rural areas have fewer and smaller schools, and rural schools have fewer administrative resources to deal with the new administrative burdens such as supporting staff to meet the new qualified teacher status requirements, dealing with increased monitoring, handling fluctuating pupil numbers and budgets, and so on.

There are significant risks to small rural schools that may well lead to even more pupils ending up in home education settings as a result of the lack of choice and lack of diversity of supply in rural environments. If pupils do end up in home educating families, they will find the environment is even harsher and the support from the Government is even more non-existent than it was before, and that the general environment is less and less helpful.

We have to take concerns about safeguarding seriously, as every hon. Member across this Chamber would agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has done serious work on that issue. I am happy to accept some of the Bill’s provisions, but there are real concerns about its more onerous requirements. I have significant concerns about the single unique identifier in particular. Let us remember that it gives any public body the ability to share any information, whether or not it is right, correct and accurate, without the knowledge or consent of parents. Anyone who thinks the public sector is good at looking after our data, and getting it accurate, has probably been living on the moon.

[Gregory Stafford]

Some weeks ago we had a debate in this Chamber about a petition signed by over 3 million people who oppose a national identity card scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if those people knew the details in the Bill, they would be equally shocked and concerned?

[Gideon Amos]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. All the concerns that lead me to oppose digital ID cards also lead me to oppose a digital ID for all our children. As the campaigners behind the petition have stated:

“Once children’s data is out there it cannot be controlled nor put back in the box.”

I could not agree more.

According to the Government’s own reports, 58 critical Government IT systems have significant gaps in cyber-security. Is that the kind of system into which we wish to put all our children’s details? Is that the kind of system that anyone wishes the data of their children and grandchildren to be put into? I do not think so. The Metropolitan police lost the details of 47,000 of its own officers. Let us take that as an example of how the public sector handles data, and consider whether we really want to provide the power to share data about our children across all public bodies: councils, social services departments, health authorities, schools, academies and all the rest of them.

As I said earlier, it is often held to be the case that home educating families are unsafe environments, but the evidence shows the opposite. Only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home educating families result in a child protection order being put in place, and such families are proportionally subject to far more child protection inquiries than non-home educating families, so they are massively over-represented within that cohort. The figures for children who are at school show that not 11% but 26% of inquiries result in child protection orders. Bearing in mind that a greater proportion of home educating families are investigated than families with children at school, a far greater proportion—more than double—of investigations of families with children at school result in a child protection order. The facts are evident: it is not appropriate to stigmatise home educating families.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for proposing an amendment to the Bill so that home educating families would not have to pay examination fees to take exams. There is zero support for home educating families. The Bill brings in even more stigma against those families. The amendment was defeated.

There is nothing in the Bill that will support home educating families, many of whom, as we have heard, are families with disabled children. A much higher proportion of disabled children are represented in the home educating community than in the school community, for the reasons we have heard—because special provision is not there and SEND provision cannot be obtained where it is needed, so many families give up on the school system. Some families need to keep their children safe so provide education at home. The vast majority of those families do so safely, putting incredible hard work into the education of their children.

Instead of the stigma put forward in the Bill, there should be support for home educating families, more work locally, more positive relationships between home educating families and local authorities, more positive work towards improving the education offer for those children and more support for those families at a difficult stage in the education of their children, many of whom will go back to school or college later on in life.

Children with SEND: Assessments and Support

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Dr Huq. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for leading the debate on this petition.

Across my Farnham and Bordon constituency, we are fortunate to have excellent specialist provision: in the community, we have Hollywater school; on the independent side, we have the Undershaw Education Trust, More House and Pathways; and in the academy sector, we have The Abbey and Ridgeway. But however good those providers are, the wider picture is stark. Demand is surging, particularly for autism and social, emotional and mental health needs.

Surrey is rightly investing, with nearly £190 million committed to expand provision and create thousands of new places, and an extra £4.9 million was approved in July to recruit staff and reduce caseloads. Three new special schools are planned as part of the long-term SEND capital programme, but that programme and that progress is in jeopardy. The Department for Education has just paused the capital funding for those schools—funding agreed under the last Conservative Government to expand local provision and reduce reliance on the independent sector. Without it, Surrey faces a shortfall of 500 places, forcing children into the independent sector at an extra cost of roughly £26.5 million each year. Surrey has made it clear that it cannot meet the Department’s targets without that funding, which is why I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask why this funding has been withheld, what bridging support will be offered and how the Department will ensure that vulnerable children are not left waiting at the start of the term. So far, there has been no response.

In Surrey, there have been constructive cross-party discussions on these issues. I particularly want to recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) has worked closely with me, not just for her constituents, but to push this agenda across Surrey. Instead, we hear rumours that this Government may scrap EHCPs altogether. That would be disastrous. Such a move would not be reform; it would be abdication, driven not by evidence but by ideology. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the lifechanging role that specialist provision plays in our system.

I urge the Minister to act to end the delays in EHCP assessments and convene a cross-party MPs’ forum with parents and stakeholders to drive urgent solutions, to commit to long-term investment to reinstate that capital grant and back bids from high-pressure areas like Surrey and Hampshire, and to protect parental rights, uphold children’s legal entitlements and guarantee that EHCPs remain the foundation of SEND support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

I will make some progress as we do not have much time and there were so many different comments.

I have heard from young people who found when applying for college that their EHCP had not been updated since they were very young and colleges said they could not meet their needs. Some of the stories that are hardest to hear are those of people who have had to fight every single year, whose child is now 18, and who can see all the missed opportunities and feel so deeply let down, and of children have lost confidence in the support available.

Too many parents feel they have to arm up for battle when interacting with the system. They do not want to resort to the tribunal, but sometimes feel that is the only way to get support. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) said that parents are exhausted. So many parents say that they are exhausted by having to fight and, heartbreakingly, that they feel broken by the system. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who criticised the comments by the Reform leadership attacking parents who are just fighting for their children to get the support that they need. I know parents will never give up, because they want to support their children.

We cannot start this discussion without acknowledging how many children and families have been badly let down by the system. Many within the system are also struggling: teachers who do not feel like they have the right training or support to meet need in the classroom, as we heard from so many Members today; schools that want more specialist support, such as speech and language therapy, for their children but do not have access to it; and local authorities that did not get the investment they needed to build a local offer and so are paying for expensive private provision far away from communities.

[Gregory Stafford]

I thank the Minister for outlining many of the problems in the system. She has now had six out of her 10 minutes and she has not told us what the Government are going to do. Can I press her to tell us what the Government are actually going to do?

[Georgia Gould]

I think it is just very important that we hear from parents. When I spoke to them yesterday, one of the things they said was that it is critical that they hear from the Government that we understand the challenges that they face before we move forward.

There is also some amazing practice going on, and we heard about it today: schools that are supporting children and young people, and teaching assistants who are investing in that support. We heard the wonderful example from Colne Valley, where neurodiversity training has been put in place.

SEND Provision: South-east England

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I rise today not just as a constituency MP, but as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as someone alarmed by what I see every day: a system stretched to the point of failure, with vulnerable children paying the price.

In my first year as an MP I have taken up 98 SEND cases, but I accept that that is just the tip of the iceberg in my constituency. Those cases include a family whose son’s autism assessment is so delayed that he will finish school before he gets the help he needs. Another family is spending over £10,000 on tribunal proceedings. This is not a system; it is a fight, and families are losing. Across both Surrey and Hampshire, 3% of pupils in state-funded schools have an EHCP and a further 13% receive SEND support, but behind the numbers are children waiting years for basic support, parents forced into legal battles just to access what their children are entitled to and councils collapsing under the sheer volume of demand, without the necessary support that this requires from national Government.

The crisis is compounded by serious concerns about legality and quality. I have heard credible reports of educational psychologist assessments being drafted by trainees and rubber-stamped without proper oversight—a process designed to evade scrutiny, not deliver support. Meanwhile, the cost of failure is spiralling. In Surrey alone, more than £13 million a year is spent on taxis to bring more than 500 children to school. Nationally, the average cost of special school placements is now over £61,000 per child per year, and councils are staring down a projected £5 billion SEND deficit by 2026.

All of that is worsened by the Government’s ideological attack on independent schools. Schools like More House and Undershaw school offer bespoke, life-changing provision, often in partnership with local authorities, for children who cannot cope in mainstream education. However, tax changes and policy hostility are forcing closures, reducing places and driving up costs. The result is fewer options for children and more pressure on already overwhelmed state schools. I pay tribute to Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has just taken over as the new cabinet member in Surrey and is trying his best to grapple with this problem.

As we have heard across the Chamber, this is not a Surrey or Hampshire problem; it is country-wide, and the Government need to step up. Will the Minister ringfence capital funding to expand specialist places in high-need areas? Will she publish guidance and support to reduce the cost and overuse of solo SEND transport, which is neither sustainable nor in the child’s best interest? Will she protect alternative and independent providers that deliver high-quality specialty education?

[Monica Harding]

I thank my fellow Surrey MP for his thoughts. Last year, nearly half of Surrey’s high needs block of £122 million was spent supporting SEND places at non-maintained independent schools. Placing those children in state-maintained school is often half the cost. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we need to put more money into state schools rather than independent schools, which are often run by private equity firms taking money out of local authorities and making profit on the backs of very vulnerable children?

[Gregory Stafford]

I respect the hon. Lady deeply, but I must say that I entirely disagree. Pitting the state sector against the independent sector, and vice versa, is entirely the wrong way to go about it—it would damage education. I am very happy to take her around More House or Undershaw in my constituency to show her the amazing work that those two schools do; she may change her tune once she has seen that.

The key thing is this: will the Government step up and make the national changes and reforms to make this system fair, equitable and sustainable across the country? SEND families are asking not for special treatment but for lawful, timely and compassionate support. No child should feel hopeless in the very system meant to help them, and no family should be forced to break themselves to secure basic rights. Let us fix this, and mean what we say when we talk about inclusion.

Adoption and Kinship Placements

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) on securing this important debate. Keen observers of Westminster Hall debates will have noticed that she responded on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to the debate that I had secured this morning, so there is a nice symmetry in the fact that I am responding to her debate this afternoon.

My hon. Friend gave an excellent summary of the current system and the impact that the changes that happened overnight will have on adopters and carers and, of course, on the children they support. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have powerfully demonstrated the impact that the changes are having on their constituents, and the situation in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, which includes Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, is no different. Hon. Members will have to forgive me; because so many Members have spoken in the debate, I will not be able to mention all their contributions. However, I pay special tribute to those Members who referred to their personal experiences in this matter.

First, I want to note the strong record of the previous Conservative Government on supporting kinship carers, adoptive families and some of the most vulnerable children in our society. While others have made promises, we took action. However, there is no doubt that there is more to do, which is why I welcome this debate.

The Conservatives have a strong record of prioritising and increasing adoption and strengthening kinship policymaking, including by introducing the adoption and special guardianship support fund, which provided financial support to local authorities and regional adoption agencies to pay for essential therapeutic services for the most vulnerable children. The Government’s decision to cut the fund was a retrograde step, and it has placed significant stress on the near 17,000 applicants in 2023-24 alone who utilised services such as family therapy, parental training and creative therapeutic intervention.

It is highly regrettable that the Government failed to provide clarity about the continuation of the fund before its expiry on 31 March. Despite repeated calls for assurance, including from practitioners and sector leaders, Labour delayed its announcement. When it finally came, as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) stated, it confirmed a 40% reduction in the fair access limit, capping support at £3,000 per child per year compared with the £5,000 that families could access previously. The reduction places pressure on local authorities to bridge a shortfall of almost £34 million, using already stretched children’s services budgets.

The Minister has stated previously that additional support can be provided above the cap, but only at the discretion and financial behest of local councils. As hon. Members have said, many local authorities are not in the position to do so, but even if they are, this approach risks creating a postcode lottery, with some of the most vulnerable children supported but others left out.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

As one of the vice-chairs of the APPG on kinship care along with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I want to add my voice to those calling for a reversal of the cuts, and for the Government to go further and better support families in adoption and kinship care.

[Gregory Stafford]

I know what a doughty champion my hon. Friend is for this cause, and I entirely agree with him. The Government need to set out precisely what they will do going forward, as well as reversing the cut that they made. I seek clarification on what the Minister’s adoption strategy is, beyond the delayed and unfair cuts that she has made so far for these children. In 2024, there were nearly 3,000 looked-after children who were adopted. Putting aside the fund that we have been talking about, how is she going to support those vulnerable children?

While the continuation of essential schemes remains, let us say, grey under this Government, adoptive families now cite a lack of support as a key barrier. Without essential support, the whole adoption process risks becoming what former MP and Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, called a “false economy”. The truth is that when we fail to invest in adoption, especially in kinship care, we end up relying more heavily on a state system that, in the long run, costs more and too often fails children. It leaves them more vulnerable to poor outcomes, including higher risks of criminal involvement and limited aspirations. When it is done right, adoption offers the security, stability and sense of belonging that every child deserves, and we should support it accordingly.

Likewise, the deeply flawed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill represents a major failure for kinship carers. The lack of statutory obligations and the concerns about the sufficiency of financial support highlight the need for continued advocacy and potential further legislative action to ensure that kinship carers and the children they support receive comprehensive support. Those carers typically receive little financial or emotional support, despite playing a vital role in keeping children out of the formal care system.

These often unsung heroes deserve better. That is why the previous Government introduced the social impact bond model, an innovative funding approach that backed targeted projects to support kinship families. They included initiatives such as training and guidance for carers; family group conferencing, where social workers bring family and carers around the table to discuss the most viable options for the long term; and other structured efforts to prevent the breakdown of kinship placement, which, if unsupported, can push children into the care system.

A notable example of such an SIB is Kinship Connected. Funded by private investment, it aimed not only to relieve pressure on local authorities but, more importantly, to enhance stability and wellbeing for the children at the heart of these families, by rehoming children with their grandparents when the immediate family had broken down. That ensured that siblings remained together and received consistent, supportive care within their extended family network. That approach prioritised emotional continuity and minimised the trauma often associated with foster care placements.

Kinship care and adoption offer vital, human-centred alternatives to the traditional care system, yet too often those pathways are undervalued. To truly serve the best interests of children, we must ensure that local authorities are supported and broaden our strategy to actively support and invest in family-based solutions beyond the boundaries of state control.

The Minister has been widely praised this afternoon by Government Members. This is the time for her to live up to that reputation, so I will close my remarks with four questions to her. How are the Government working with local authorities to ensure that they are able to provide the best care available for vulnerable children, especially following the cut to the adoption and special guardianship support fund? Secondly, what steps will the Minister take to ensure sustained and equitable support for kinship carers, particularly in the light of the cuts to that fund and the absence of statutory obligations in legislation? Thirdly, how are the Government ensuring that private capital is not isolated by their state-focused strategy, so that that as much investment as possible can be awarded to worthy schemes for kinship care? Finally, how are the Government extending family group conferencing to ensure that children are kept within the family unit, where they can be safe and happy for as long as possible?

I agree with the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). I will take up my pitchfork, too, and go to the Treasury to get the funding. We have a duty of care to these children. We need to support adopters and carers. If we do not, the financial cost will be great, but the human cost will be far greater.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lizzi Collinge]

I accept wholeheartedly the amount of parents of children, particularly with SEND, who have been absolutely failed by our system and by 14 years of Conservative Government. What I do not accept is that the proposal is somehow a major imposition. I do not believe that checking that children are receiving a decent education and are safe and well cared for is a major imposition on parents, and I think all good parents would welcome that.

These measures are being put in place to protect and safeguard vulnerable children. Having no oversight of children not in school is an unacceptable risk to children’s welfare. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is crucial, and cannot come too soon to protect our most vulnerable children and to support families up and down the country with rising costs. It has the welfare of children at its heart, and I am proud to have served on the Bill Committee and to have played a role in shaping this vital legislation.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

Like VAT on independent schools and putting up costs through national insurance contributions, this Bill is yet another example of Labour turning children’s education into an ideological battleground. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Labour clearly hates any form of education that is not state-controlled, local authority-run schooling, and this Bill is another example of that. Under the Conservatives, pupils soared up international league tables, ensuring that every child, regardless of postcode—except if they lived in Wales—received the best start in life. Labour is intent on reversing that progress, attacking academic freedoms and dismantling a system that has delivered demonstrable results for young people. Indeed, it was a system that Labour used to champion, but now it has come back to power and is looking to dismantle it.

Most of this Bill is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Like the Employment Rights Bill last week, it is bodged and being rushed through without proper scrutiny, and behind it all is the cold, dead hand of the union paymasters that fund Labour. I commented on it during debate on the Employment Rights Bill, and we have heard again today—I am afraid the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) has just left his place—that the “Jurassic Park” of the unions is back. Like last week, it is not Jeff Goldblum—

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I will finish my analogy. It is not Jeff Goldblum who is going to be savaged by the dinosaurs; it is our children.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr, to whom he referred and who has actually worked in schools as a teacher, might have a really good grasp of what happens in schools?

[Gregory Stafford]

It would be totally wrong of me to cast any aspersions on the hon. Gentleman’s teaching ability. I have not sat through one of his classes, but if it was anything like his speech an hour ago, I would perhaps be looking to find some other educational outlet for myself or my child.

While I acknowledge that some of the child protection aspects of this Bill are important, much of it represents a dangerous and unnecessary centralisation of power that will harm schools, teachers and, most importantly, pupils. In recent meetings I have had with the Last Wednesday SEND group, as well as with home education groups across Surrey and Hampshire, there has been overwhelming concern about the proposed legislation. Many of those I have spoken to feel vilified for choosing to remove their children from mainstream education in favour of alternative specialised provision tailored to the individual needs of their children.

I will take this opportunity to highlight five key amendments that I think are particularly important; I urge Members to give them their full consideration. The first is amendment 206, which would remove the requirement for all academies to follow the national curriculum. Clearly, a national curriculum can provide a broad and balanced education, but education is not a one-size-fits-all issue. The Bill seeks to stifle innovation, which is a dangerous and regressive move. It is particularly concerning for faith schools and alternative provision settings such as Pathways school, a SEND provision school in my constituency. Pathways school plays an invaluable role in educating vulnerable children and providing trauma-informed strategies alongside a high-quality, project-based curriculum. Excellent spaces such as those would struggle to continue under state-imposed education strictures.

As a parent, I draw attention to new clause 41, which would give parents the right to review school curriculum materials to ensure their children are fairly exposed to material appropriate for their age group. It is not controversial to say that parents have a unique and intimate understanding of their children’s needs, and it is only right that they have an active role in ensuring the quality and suitability of their children’s education.

Moving on to amendments 200 and 202 regarding home education, a key group in my constituency that have ardently opposed state-controlled education are the home educators. Home education is a provision used by many parents across Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere and Liphook, because it provides a more personalised approach to learning, which in some cases benefits certain children. Amendment 200 would mandate local authorities to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree that a child can be home-educated. Families are deeply concerned that the Government’s proposals impose excessive state control over home education, failing to recognise the dedication and care that home-educating parents provide. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) said— I think I am quoting her correctly—that “all good parents would welcome” this imposition on education. That is deeply unfair to all the good home-educating parents who have contacted me. They do not feel that this is a proportionate measure; they think it is a deep imposition, and they are good home-educators.

Amendment 200 is a more proportionate way to address concerns while ensuring the accountability that the hon. Lady wanted. That is especially important for families with SEND children awaiting education, health and care plans—a process that can take up to two years. In my local area, 17% of independent school pupils receive SEND support, yet only 6% have a formal EHCP. Therefore, home education, especially in that interim gap between realising a child needs SEND support and receiving an EHCP, is often the best option for them. Amendment 202 would remove the requirement for local authorities to approve and consent to the home education of children with special educational needs. Removing those bureaucratic hurdles would empower parents to make the best decisions for their children and would ensure inclusivity and equity in education.

I want to touch on amendment 192 on neglect and abuse of children that is related to home education. Although I strongly support home education as a valid choice, safeguarding must remain a priority. However, home-educating parents feel vilified by this Government, who treat them as if they were inherently suspect, as the hon. Lady did, rather than recognising their commitment to their children’s education. Amendment 192 would ensure that local authorities may withhold consent for withdrawal from school where there are concerns about neglect or abuse. The entire House was horrified by the tragic case of Sara Sharif, and the amendment is a necessary, balanced and proportionate response—far more so than the Government’s broader proposals, which unfairly target responsible home-educating parents. Instead of a sweeping punitive approach, the amendment focuses directly on children who are genuinely at risk, ensuring that they remain in a monitored environment where safeguarding concerns can be identified and addressed.

The Bill is an ideological attack on academic freedoms which will hurt the very children who Labour claims to support. It imposes unnecessary constraints on schools, weakens parental choice and undermines educational innovation. The poorest pupils will suffer the most. Academic freedoms have driven up standards, allowing schools to tailor their curricula to meet the needs of pupils. Labour’s insistence on enforcing a rigid national curriculum will stifle progress and limit opportunities. Its move to weaken the academy system will leave struggling schools in limbo, harming the very children who need urgent intervention.

The Bill tears down 25 years of progress—progress that has had a demonstrable impact on children, improving their educational outcomes, life chances and business and employment opportunities, and benefiting the country as a whole. I urge the House to reject this damaging Bill and to stand up for the best interests of our children. Let us protect parental rights, uphold educational freedoms and ensure that every child has access to safe, high-quality and inspirational education.

SEND Education Support

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate. As Members have said, we seem to discuss SEND in this House pretty much on a weekly basis, and rightly so.

I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and I do cross-party work with colleagues in this Chamber and beyond to ensure the experiences of constituents are heard in this place. I, too, have a number of special schools in my constituency—both state and independent.

Hon. Members will have to forgive me for not talking about every single contribution that was made today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comments about sensory and calming rooms, and I hope the Minister will take them into account. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose commitment to education in his constituency is obvious. I hope the Minister will consider the statutory changes that he asked for. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), whose moving and heartbreaking story touched us all and will have resonance with all our constituents.

Clearly, special educational needs and disabilities are extraordinarily important. That casework fills my postbag, and a lot of it comes from my predecessors, which demonstrates how long some of these cases can go on for. The Conservative Government’s reforms, through the Children and Families Act 2014, marked a significant shift in raising awareness, changing the narrative and addressing educational shortfalls in the system that, under a previous Administration, had failed to adequately make legislative changes for SEND children. The Act created EHCPs, a vital tool for allowing parents to receive the support that they need for their children in the education system.

Only a minority of SEND pupils actually have an EHCP. According to data from the Department for Education for 2023-24, 1.6 million pupils in England had SEND conditions. Of those, 1.2 million received SEND support without an EHCP, meaning that 400,000 had an EHCP. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: in her plans, what happens to the other 75% of SEND pupils?

Nearly 17% of independent school pupils are receiving SEND support, but only 6% of those have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners that:

“Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.”

Will the Minister confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent system who receive SEND support with no formal EHCP are not included in her plans, as the Prime Minister outlined in June?

The 2014 Act was a step change. Now, we need a further step change from this Government. In the Public Accounts Committee’s recently published inquiry into the SEND emergency, it was revealed that the Department for Education does not fully understand the root causes behind the surge in demand for EHCPs. In my area, between 2019 and 2024, EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire—well above the national average. In the Committee’s inquiry, the Department admitted that it had not adequately examined the barriers to promoting inclusivity in mainstream schools.

That is particularly concerning for the three SEND schools in my constituency—the Ridgeway school, Hollywater school, which is currently expanding due to Hampshire county council’s funding, and the Abbey school —which are now under extreme pressure from the exodus of children, once educated in the independent sector, who are now entering the mainstream system. I am also worried by the lack of provision and support given to independent special educational schools, which is affecting three schools in my constituency: More House, Undershaw and Pathways. Those three schools educate nearly 1,000 children with complex SEND needs, and, without these independent schools, my local state schools will crumble under the pressure.

While the Government’s £1 billion for SEND is entirely welcome—this funding injection will be a positive boost for local authorities—we have seen that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education are not listening to those parents of children who do not have an EHCP and are educated in the independent sector. Therefore, I ask the Minister—

[Alistair Strathern]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I am under a lot of time pressure, and I want the proposer of the motion to be able to get in, so I will not. I have to leave time for the Minister too, and I really want to hear her answers to my questions.

As I was saying, I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that she has engaged with parents and teachers in this situation. And what steps is she taking to ensure that vulnerable children do not suffer the greatest because of this Government’s policy?

Despite the—I have to say—utter nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), the Conservative Government launched a review of the SEND system in 2019 to end the postcode lottery, and committed an extra £700 million in the year 2020-21, an 11% increase on the year prior. Moreover, to ensure that children and young people received the most appropriate support for their needs, the national SEND and alternative provision implementation board was established.

[Alex McIntyre]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

I am not going to give way, sorry. That created a national system with new, clear standards under the Green Paper, and a consultation that set out the Conservatives’ commitment to delivering the support that children with SEND truly need.

To oversee those vital changes, the SEND system leadership board brought together sector leaders across education, health and social care to drive improvements. The Local Government Association has warned, however, that without proper reform, SEND provision will deteriorate and become financially unviable. A 2024 National Audit Office report echoed those concerns, highlighting the 140% rise in EHCPs since 2015 and warning that the system will become financially unsustainable if unchanged.

Information from the Children and Young People Select Committee last year indicated that there were 2,784 children and young people waiting for autism and ADHD assessments in East Hampshire in my constituency, with waiting times averaging around two years. During that time, children and their families are unable to access the necessary provisions, and that negatively affects their quality of life and puts pressure on local schools. That situation increases the risk of adverse outcomes in educational attainment, mental health and future employment.

I am working closely with local organisations such as SEN Talk CIC, which is a charity founded by a constituent of mine. I have seen its profound impact: 92% of children participating in its programmes report a positive change in their lives, and 80% gain valuable lifelong skills. That is just one of the great initiatives that support many children in my constituency, particularly SEND pupils who are home educated. Although home education is not right for every child, it is a fundamental right that is employed by parents across the UK to give them a hands-on approach to their children’s education.

I have spoken to Kate from Nurtured Neuro Kids and others who have expressed their considerable concerns about the impact that the Government’s rushed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will have on SEND children who are educated from home. They are very upset by the lack of positive acknowledgment from the Education Secretary of the important work that they do to take the strain from the mainstream system, and the lack of consultation or consideration for Conservative amendments that would have protected their work. It is therefore important for constituents such as Kate to be assured that the Government will take steps to ensure that all children with speech and language needs get the help they deserve.

It is clearly a wise and welcome decision for the Government to continue the Nuffield early language intervention programme, which provides crucial support to children with speech and language needs. We must acknowledge, however, that there remains significant disparity in access to funding and support, regardless of the region or the individual specialist needs of the child. Every child who struggles with speech and language must have access to support, regardless of where they live.

Despite a relatively collegiate debate, a number of Members—I pick out the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Gloucester—have seen fit to blame the Conservative record and point out Conservative councils’ record in this area. Of the three councils with the highest appeal rates for EHCPs, however, two are Liberal Democrat and one is Labour, so I gently say to Government Members that this is a nationwide problem. Rather than point scoring, it would be better for hon. Members to work together, so that those unfair decisions, and the impact they have on families, are quickly resolved. The comments from the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) were particularly uncharitable. I point out to him that in the spring Budget statement, the last Government committed to 15 special schools, with which this Government are not continuing.

I urge the Minister to address the root causes of the problems in the SEND system, including funding and the decision to tax independent schools. Proper reform of the system, including reform of the EHCP process, would give children a proper educational choice. Without it, we risk what the Public Accounts Committee called a “lost generation of children”.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I ask the Minister to leave a minute or so at the end, so that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal can wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

Opposition Members might not like it, but that is what the Leader of the Opposition said. The Conservatives had 14 years to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. Now is the time for action—no more empty words or lessons learned. Labour has brought forward the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation, but the Conservatives refuse to back it. To label the measures a distraction is a new low. I encourage the shadow Secretary of State to distance herself from those shocking remarks.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

The Secretary of State should consider what she just said. The Bill has specific clauses about home schooling. I know that the Labour Government do not like any form of education that is not in state-run, local authority schools, but those who home school have significant concerns that the Bill will put unfair burdens on them and will change the relationship between those who are lawfully and legally educating their children at home and the state. Will she meet home schooling representatives to discuss their concerns and to ensure that while the Bill contains the relevant safeguarding, those who home school are made to feel that they are contributing to their children’s welfare?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Parents who choose to home educate their children are within their rights to do so. Those who provide a safe, loving environment and a good standard of education have nothing to be concerned about in the legislation. We are concerned about the growing number of children of whom we simply have no visibility. The Bill will ensure that where there are serious concerns about child protection and safeguarding, such as where a section 47 investigation is under way, the local authority must consent to home education. I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman finds those straightforward measures to keep children safe such an outrage. They are about protecting children.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that not only is the system creating stress and failing far too many children and families, but it is not creating the outcomes that we want to see for every child, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. I will raise the important point she has made with my colleague in the Department of Health who has responsibility for apprenticeships.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

On Friday afternoon, alongside my right hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), I arranged a meeting with parents, governors and teachers at independent schools. They were unanimous that imposing an education tax partway through an academic year will have disastrous impacts on the education of every child, but especially those with special educational needs. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Labour’s education tax on the caseload of EHCPs, and on the capacity of local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire to meet them?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Treasury will produce its impact assessment as part of the normal course of implementing new taxation, and the hon. Gentleman can refer to that assessment once it is published.

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Hongkongers live across the UK and in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including in Haslemere and Liphook. I declare an interest—this is also a plug—in that I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. If any Member in this room wishes to join, I encourage them to do so. We are not favoured by the Chinese Communist party, I can tell you that.

Among the many wise and important decisions that the Conservative Administration made over the last 14 years, one of the most important was launching a special immigration route in June 2020, in response to the escalating political situation and the Chinese Communist Government’s implementation of the dangerous and oppressive national security law. The visa has welcomed Hong Kong residents who hold British national overseas status, and their immediate families, to live, work and study in the UK, away from restrictions on their freedoms and political rights. Since the launch of the scheme in 2021, as has been mentioned, more than 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to Britain using that bespoke immigration pathway, with more than 26,000 emigrating over the past year. For many people, the scheme has not only been a lifeline, but has ensured their families’ survival and their own. We have seen many cases, including those mentioned today, involving brave political and democratic prisoners such as Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong and Benny Tai.

First, I will address the important role that Hongkongers have played in key sectors, such as healthcare, which is my own background. My work in the health and social care system means I have seen the impact that BNO visas have had on the core institutions in this country, such as the NHS. As of June 2023, more than 700 Hongkongers are working in the NHS, with Asian people being the second largest nationality, next to British, working in our healthcare system. Access to services such as the NHS is available to anyone who resides in the UK, and BNO visa holders pay the immigration health surcharge during the application process. If they contribute to our system through their employment, it is only right that they benefit in their times of need.

My second point is about our security and defence policy. Alongside its allies Iran and Russia, the Chinese Communist party—the Government of China—is the single greatest threat to democracy, peace and freedom here in the United Kingdom and across the western world. As has been mentioned, that is evidenced by the crackdown on political and freedom of speech, as happened with Jimmy Lai, and its integration into international universities and education systems. We saw that specifically in the UK with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was shelved by the Education Secretary over British universities’ desire to protect their operations against authoritarian states such as China. The protection granted to the Chinese state amid crackdowns on freedom is disastrous for not only British students, but for Hongkongers in the UK, and it creates problems with security. China does not believe in the dual national status of descendants, so they will continue to be recognised as Chinese nationals and therefore denied UK consular access, as in the case of Jimmy Lai. Only yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated Mr Lai’s case, and the Prime Minister agreed with the Opposition that his imprisonment was a breach of the 1984 treaty. In his party’s manifesto, the Prime Minister committed to continuing the Conservative-instated BNO visas.

However, the repression of democracy is not exclusive to the mainland and Hong Kong. As has been mentioned, we saw it here in the UK in the attacks on Hong Kong protesters in Chinatown in London, a 20-minute walk away from here, and outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester a year later. As a result, and for the protection of those to whom we issue BNO visas, it is essential to gauge a better understanding of the transnational threat that BNO holders face in the UK. I call on the Foreign Secretary, when he meets the Chinese Government, to raise these issues and absolutely confirm the new UK Government’s commitment to standing up for Hongkongers and against the Chinese Communist party. I have submitted questions over this to the Home Office about naturalisation and British citizenship protections.

Finally, in the 20 seconds left to me, I want to reiterate my earlier point about freedom. China is a country where dissent is stifled and free speech tightly controlled. The internet, a tool of liberation and information in many parts of the world, is censored. Citizens who speak out against the Government or challenge the state’s narrative can face imprisonment or worse. We must not let the plight of Hongkongers in Hong Kong or in Britain be ignored or put to the side, so I ask this of the Minister. We must stand up for them, and I welcome the commitment that I hope she will give in a moment to that cause.

SEND Provision

Gregory Stafford Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this important debate. I know time is tight, so I will keep to a couple of very specific points. One such point is on the Government’s plans to add VAT to private schools and how that will affect SEND provision. My first question to the Minister is this: what impact assessment did the Government carry out, with regard to the VAT changes to private schools, of the effect on children with special educational needs and on SEND school places? If the Government have done an impact assessment, will they publish it, and if they did not, why on earth not? I appreciate that the Minister might not be able to answer that question here and now, but I see the officials are in the room behind her, so I am happy for that to be sent to me.

As I understand it, the Government policy is not to impose VAT on private school places where the school place is allocated on the basis of an EHCP. However, there will be very many children with special educational needs who have not yet secured such a plan, and so VAT will apply.

[Gregory Stafford]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Esther McVey]

Not at the moment.

We know that families have to go through a rigorous set of tests to obtain an EHCP, often ending in an appeal or taking many weeks to be finalised. In those cases where the plan has not been finalised, parents will have to make the difficult decision whether to send their child to an independent school. In those instances there will be a significant uplift in those pupils’ fees—a massive worry for parents. Some will now no longer be able to afford the fees. We can only imagine their guilt and concern. What are they going to do? Will they have to stop their child’s progress at that school? Will the child need to leave that school?

How can it be fair that a child who is delayed in the education, health and care plan process, through no fault of their own, faces VAT costs, while another child who has secured their EHCP in time does not have that burden? Could the Minister explain that unfairness that the Government have now introduced into the system, and whether they plan to put a stop to it as soon as possible? In light of that unfairness, I urge the Government to look at what steps can be taken to reduce the time that the assessments for an EHCP take, more generally.

There are three local authorities in my constituency, all of which consistently go beyond the legal timeframe. I asked Cheshire West SEND accountability group for parents how long the EHCP process takes. Legally, it should take only 20 weeks, but some have waited more than 60 weeks. Anecdotally, they say on average it is taking 30 to 50 weeks—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

In Farnham and Bordon, which I proudly represent, we are fortunate to have many excellent special educational schools, such as the Ridgeway school, the Abbey school, More House, Undershaw school and Stepping Stones in Surrey, and Hollywater in Hampshire. However, Surrey is a special case that requires urgent and increased Government action.

Nationally, SEND education affects about 18% of pupils, but in Surrey the figure rises to a staggering 39%—double the national average. Hampshire largely aligns with the national figures, yet both counties face rising demands. Surrey’s situation highlights the need for immediate, targeted intervention from the Government. Although I remain equally committed to supporting SEND pupils and parents in Hampshire, Surrey’s unique pressures cannot be ignored. Those families need more support, not only from their local councils but, crucially, from central Government.

The Conservative Government made significant strides in addressing the challenges. For more than a decade, Conservative Chancellors increased the annual funding to meet the rising demand. Since 2015, we have seen a 283% increase in EHCP agreements, which demonstrates the Government’s responsiveness to the growing number of diagnoses. Despite that progress, there is much more to be done, and the strain on services continues to grow. I have seen the profound impact that early detection and diagnosis can have, particularly in SEND, where identifying needs early is crucial to a child’s long-term success. While local authorities such as Surrey and Hampshire are doing their best, they need more resources to manage the increased demand without delays.

I am deeply concerned by the Government’s decision to raise VAT on independent SEND schools. That policy risks pushing many children who are not funded by local authorities, such as 40% of the children at More House, back into the state sector, which is already struggling with larger class sizes and fewer resources. A 20% increase in fees will be devastating for those families, particularly given the long waiting times for EHCPs. The Government must rethink their VAT strategy for these schools.

Parents in my constituency have shared with me the immense stress and frustration that they face, not just from navigating the system but from the delays that impact their children’s education and wellbeing. These families are already stretched, and the uncertainty takes an untold toll on both the children and their families. There is an urgent need for more trained educational psychologists and special educational needs co-ordinators, and the Government must step up to provide them.

It is also critical that MPs across all parties stop using SEND as a political football, as we have seen recently in Surrey. The blame game helps no one. It only serves to confuse and frustrate parents further. We must work together to provide clear, accurate information and focus on delivering the support that families in Surrey and Hampshire so desperately need. We need action now.