SEND Provision: East of England

Debate between Helen Grant and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) on securing a debate on this incredibly important and timely issue. I know that she was a champion for vulnerable young people long before entering this place, and that she shares the Government’s vision for ensuring that all young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead healthy, happy and productive lives.

Improving the special educational needs and disabilities system across the country is a priority for all of us in this debate. I am regularly struck by the level of cross-party consensus on this issue, from Broxbourne to Southend West and Leigh, and from Huntingdon to Stevenage and Waveney Valley. So many Members have spoken powerfully on behalf of the children and families in their areas.

I appreciate specifically the hand of collaboration offered by the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), because this is a priority for the Government, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), referenced. We are determined to improve services for children and young people with special educational needs across the country, including in the east of England.

More than 1.6 million children and young people in England have special educational needs. For too long, too many families have been let down by a system that is not working. The former Secretary of State described it as “lose, lose, lose” and she was right, because despite the high-needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities rising to higher and higher levels, confidence in the system remains incredibly low. Tribunal rates—as referred to by the Liberal Democrat Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman)—are increasing, and there are increasingly long waits for support. Far too many children with special educational needs are falling behind their peers, and they do not reach the expected levels in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills, with just one in four pupils achieving the expected standard by the end of primary school. We know that families are struggling to get their child the support they need and, more importantly, deserve. That must change.

[Helen Grant]

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the shadow Minister, did not quite answer my question on this, and I would love to hear the Minister’s response, bearing in mind what she is saying about the need and the work of special schools. Does she believe that the ringfencing of funding for SEND schools, with tracked impact measures, could help some of these amazing schools that go above and beyond in helping children who are highly vulnerable with their education and care, as well as supporting their families to flourish further?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will take away the hon. Lady’s suggestion. I want to set out today how we want to improve our whole education system to serve children in the best way possible regardless of their needs, and especially, given the subject of this debate, children with special educational needs and disabilities. We want to reform the system to achieve that across the board.

We know that for many years, parents have been frustrated, but we are determined to fix the system, and I will repeat and reiterate that. However, this starts with being honest with families about the challenges in the system. We urgently need to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, and we need to make sure that there are special schools that can cater for those with complex needs. We are determined to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support that they need to flourish, no matter their additional need or disability. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke powerfully about these issues.

We know that effective early identification and intervention is key to reducing the impact of a special educational need or disability in the long term. That is why we announced the extended funding for the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme to continue it into next year, so that we make sure that children get the extra support they need to find their voice and to give them the best start to their education.

But there are no quick fixes for these deep-rooted issues. After 14 years, we know that the system is really struggling. It is in desperate need of reform and it is vital that we fix it. That is why we have started this work already; it is a priority for us, but it will take time. We are clear that we cannot do this alone, which is why we will work with those in the sector as essential and valued partners to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered together with parents, schools, councils and the expert staff who go above and beyond every day to look after the children in their care.

We are acting as quickly as we can to respond to the urgent cost pressures in the SEND system, which are causing real financial problems across the east of England and nationally. Many hon. Members have referred to those problems today. Before the parliamentary recess, we announced a new core schools budget grant, which will provide special and alternative provision schools with an extra £140 million of funding this financial year. Some £13.6 million of that has been allocated to local authorities in the east of England region. That is in addition to the high needs funding allocations for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities, and the existing teachers’ pay and pensions grants.

The Department for Education’s budgets for the next financial year have not yet been decided. How much high-needs funding is distributed to local authorities, schools and colleges will depend on the Government’s spending review, which is due to be announced at the end of the month. That means that next year’s high allocation funding to local authorities has not been published to the normal timescales, but we are working across Government to announce next year’s allocations for local authorities as soon as we can. I take on board the comments in that regard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk.

Resolving the problems with the SEND system—I repeat this point—will not be easy or quick, and it will not happen as quickly as we or any families who need it want it to happen. But I am keen that we deliver long-term solutions together, and I am grateful for the contributions from across the House on these important issues, because I know that we all want the same thing.

As well as making sure that we have better outcomes from the investment made in young people, it is important that there is a fair education funding system and that it directs funding to where it is needed. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) raised this issue, and we want to make sure that we have a system that allocates funding in the fairest and most appropriate way possible. However, it will take time to look at that formula, and we will consider carefully the impacts of any changes on local authorities.

Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission jointly inspect local area SEND provision to ensure that there is joined-up support for children and young people. Those inspections enable the Department for Education to intervene in cases of significant concern and to work with local authorities and professional advisers to address areas of weakness. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) raised this issue, and I, too, am concerned that the SEND inspections in central Bedfordshire and Peterborough in 2019, and in Hertfordshire and Suffolk in 2023, found significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes of children with SEND. The issues raised in the inspection reports are serious. The Government need to be confident that the right actions to secure sustainable and rapid improvement are being taken in these areas. The 2023 inspection report for Southend-on-Sea is also notable. While not being found to have serious concerns, the judgment by Ofsted and the CQC relating to the partnership’s

“inconsistent experiences and outcomes for children and young people”

highlights the need to work closely with local area partnerships to support and help to drive crucial improvements.

It is essential that rapid action is taken to improve SEND services in areas where they are not meeting the need, and that leaders accept collective responsibility and accountability for delivering on agreed actions. That will require a relentless focus on improvement across all service providers so that children, young people and families can access the support they need. Department for Education officials will continue to work closely with these local areas over the coming months to ensure that the necessary progress is being made. For local area partnerships that have yet to be inspected under the new framework, meetings will also continue with SEND leads to keep abreast of emerging issues and concerns, as well as gathering evidence of good practice. Areas that do this well can share that with other local authorities, other regions and nationally.

Specialist place sufficiency was raised by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). Local authorities can use their high needs capital funding to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as in other specialist settings. It can also be used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings. Suffolk, for example, has been allocated £23 million in high needs capital funding between 2022 and 2025, and the east of England region as a whole received £236 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) mentioned, in addition to specialist places, it is right that this Government are committed to working with councils, school leaders and other sector partners nationally, and in the east of England, to develop a more inclusive education system within mainstream settings. To ensure the high and rising standards that we want to see in our schools, we have to deliver the right places at the right time and in the right sufficiency.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of exclusions— I am very conscious of the time, but I take on board the concerns. A framework is in place that must be followed to ensure that these decisions are made correctly.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft again for bringing these matters forward. We recognise that the SEND system needs to improve. We acknowledge the difficulties faced too often in securing the right support for children with SEND. I am determined that that will change. My final word must go to all those working in education, health and care, in the interests of our children and young people with special educational needs, both in the east of England and across the country. Together, we will deliver the best for all our children and young people, no matter their special educational needs or disabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Helen Grant and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am delighted to congratulate the 13 host cities. My hon. Friend’s constituency, with its unique link to the birthplace of rugby, has an excellent opportunity to benefit from next year’s tournament.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Tourism is a growth industry in the north-east, supporting 18,000 jobs in an area that still suffers from the highest levels of unemployment in the country. What is the Minister doing to support tourism in areas such as the north-east in the light of the forthcoming major sporting events, given that such events provide an excellent opportunity for its promotion?

[Mrs Grant]

I grew up in an area close to the north-east, and I know how fabulous it is. We have an excellent domestic tourism package, and VisitEngland has launched two brilliant “holidays at home” campaigns, which have generated millions of pounds of incremental spending. I hope that the hon. Lady’s constituency will benefit from that.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Debate between Helen Grant and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a legal aid family lawyer who specialises in domestic violence. I shall speak to amendments that deal with the widening of the evidence gateway for victims of domestic violence and the time limits applied to that gateway. However, at the outset I pay tribute to the Government’s wide strategy of combating the scourge of domestic violence. During the course of this Bill’s progress, they have clearly demonstrated their commitment to the legal needs of victims of domestic violence and their related family law issues. The Government have my support, but I would have liked them to go a little further on the time limits.

Let me turn first to the evidence gateway. Domestic violence is so often a hidden crime. It is committed behind closed doors, where the victim’s primal need to preserve a relationship or family unit can overwhelm their fear of continued abuse. There are often no witnesses, save for the sad exception of children, and it is one person’s word against another’s if the police arrive on the scene. The vast majority of victims are women. They find help, support and guidance in the face of adversity through their GPs, hospitals, social services and DV support organisations. The Government are absolutely right to ensure that the gateway criteria reflect and accommodate the alternative routes that women—and some men—take to address the pain and suffering that they are experiencing. Evidence, in the form of medical reports and letters from health professionals, social services and refuges, is successfully relied on every day in the courts. Judges use it all the time to justify the making of non-molestation orders and occupation orders, under the Family Law Act 1996. If such evidence is acceptable to the courts in establishing violence, it should surely be acceptable to the Executive agency of the Ministry of Justice in making its funding decisions.

Some who suffer abuse have even heavier armoury to prevent the disclosure and reporting of domestic violence. Be it a matter of duty, shame or honour, there is often huge familial and cultural pressure in black and ethnic minority communities to avoid the police, lawyers and other statutory bodies. Women also often feel compelled to use alternative but unacceptable community mechanisms for dispute resolution, which can often expose them to increased risk of harm and injustice. A widening of the gateway will especially help those women and girls, many of whom also have practical problems in reporting violence owing to language barriers, unawareness of services and fear of deportation.

There is also a need to maintain consistency across Departments in our treatment of domestic violence. Since 2004, in dealing with applications for leave to remain on the grounds of domestic violence, the UK Border Agency has used similar criteria to those advocated today by the Government. Although I appreciate that the list of criteria is now used as indicative guidance rather than compulsory evidence, it should be accepted that during the last eight years it has worked effectively, and without opening the fearsome floodgates to the outside world.

Having given reasons to support the widening of the gateway, let me now deal with one of the principal objections that has been raised against it. During earlier Government consultations, evidence was submitted by the Law Society and other bodies which suggested that a domestic violence gateway for family legal aid could lead to false allegations. However, having worked as a legal aid family lawyer for more than 20 years, I can tell the House that the overwhelming majority of my clients would not have deliberately recruited social services into their affairs, inviting all the risks that go with such involvement, nor would they have left the family to place themselves and their children in a hostel or women’s refuge, or deliberately inflict injury on themselves or their children and then falsely report the injury to a GP or hospital. Such acts require a high degree of wanton and malicious forethought. Yes, dishonesty exists across every section of society, but we need to weigh up the quantum of potential abuse and balance it against the harm that would persist if we fail to provide essential legal services for the most vulnerable people in society.

On the time limit applied to the criteria, I do not believe that the gateway should remain open in perpetuity, but there are strong reasons for extending it beyond 12 months. Such a limit does not recognise the dynamic of domestic violence or the genuine potential for post-separation violence. Research published by Women’s Aid found that 76% of those who have experienced violence also experience post-separation violence. Also, many non-molestation injunction orders are granted for just six months or a year. It is a sad fact that on expiry a significant number of respondents return and bring to bear a threatening presence, albeit one that is perhaps not sufficient to merit the making of a further injunction order. For many women, especially those who have suffered years of abuse before taking any action, 12 months is simply not sufficient to reach a state of physical, emotional and financial readiness to commence divorce or other legal proceedings. Indeed, a short, 12-month limit could encourage women to take action too early or miss out altogether on the help they need.

In the fullness of time, however, things settle down. Acrimony reduces, people move on, people remarry, children grow up, and old wounds start to heal. We therefore have to question the equity of bleeding the scars of old battles simply to obtain legal aid ad infinitum. All this suggests that at some stage a statutory line has to be drawn under the issues of the past. My personal view is that three years, rather than one, would be more appropriate for the majority of cases, but I of course leave that open for debate.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I want to echo the case made so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mrs Chapman) and to talk about the importance of the Lords amendments in mitigating the impact of the Bill on some of the most vulnerable members of our society—namely, children. The passionate criticism of the Bill by Members in the other place revealed the short-term, short-sighted and potentially damaging aspects of this legislation, which will hit the most disadvantaged the most unfairly. I commend the work of the other place and the amendments that were passed as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, I gladly accept that, but that does not address the underlying concern that the terms are unduly restrictive and will not cover all those who require support and assistance.

[Mrs Grant]

Would the hon. Lady not also accept that we have just heard from the Government that a letter from a general practitioner, a social worker or a refuge will be of assistance? Such letters will also form part of the evidence gateway, in addition to undertakings. Those points have already been made.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My apologies; I do accept what has been said by those on the Government Front Bench today. I am simply making the point that it does not go far enough to allay the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the House. We shall see, when the amendments are voted on, whether that gives Members on the Government Benches the reassurance that they describe.

Lords amendment 194 would expand the types of acceptable evidence and harmonise the requirements for other agencies, such as the UK Border Agency, by permitting evidence from hospital doctors, GPs, and domestic violence support services and other “well-founded documentary evidence”. It provides a comprehensive list that far better reflects the reality of the forms that violence takes. It also mirrors the list of evidence already accepted by the Government in immigration law cases.

I want to quote the respondent to a survey by Rights of Women who said:

“Legal aid enabled me to resolve legally and permanently the issues around violence and emotional abuse which had been plaguing myself and my son for years. Legal aid made it possible for me to stand up to my ex-partner with the full weight of the law behind me.”

The importance of immediate access to legal aid for victims of violence and their children cannot be underestimated. It represents the difference between remaining in an abusive and life-threatening situation and finding safety. I also want to quote a member of the public who posted a message on Facebook at 7 o’clock this evening:

“I used to be a victim of domestic violence, back in the day when police did nothing and the courts gave out short-term injunctions, which was an insult. But what I do know is that domestic violence happens regardless of class. I got out of my violent marriage and was able to get a prompt divorce because I had legal aid. This Government is causing regression. What makes us proud to be British is being eroded away.”

The Government are targeting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people with this Bill. That is unfair; it is not economically sound and it will create bigger problems for the future. It is short-sighted and damaging, and I urge the Government to accept the Lords amendments.