Oral Answers to Questions Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateJim McMahon
Main Page: Jim McMahon (Labour (Co-op) - Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton)Department Debates - View all Jim McMahon's debates with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
(6 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberThe Government recognise the impact that spending on special educational needs and disabilities is having on council finances. A £1 billion increase to SEND and alternative provision was announced for 2025-26 in the autumn statement. The Government intend to set out plans for reforming the SEND system in further detail this year. That will include details on how the Government will support local authorities to deal with their historical and accruing dedicated schools grant deficits.
Next March, when local authorities can no longer exclude the high needs elements from their balance sheets, half of them will go bankrupt as it now stands. For the East Riding, it is estimated that this year’s education budget is £17 million in deficit. That is largely because of increased high needs spending on pupils with special education needs. Can the Minister give me an undertaking that we will not next year find ourselves either crushing the needs of special needs children or those of other needs in society?
First, we need to repair the system of SEND provision and deal with its impact on local authorities. The system is not sustainable in its current form, and we must reform it from the ground upwards. Secondly, deficits have been accruing and are still accruing, and that is a big issue. We certainly do not intend councils to be the victims of a system over which they have had no control, and we will work with them in our endeavour to prevent that.
As a SEND parent, my view of my child’s needs is holistic: I do not believe that they simply stop where the responsibilities of a local authority lie. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that our SEND policy reflects such needs and the responsibilities of, for instance, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Treasury and the Department for Education, as well as local authorities?
As my hon. Friend says, this issue requires a whole-of-Government approach. When Governments work in silos, it is those who need support the most who fall through the gaps in the end. This Government do work across Departments, including our own and the Department for Education, to ensure that we have a single plan. Ultimately, of course, we have to deal with the financial impact on councils, but it is the young people going through the system who really matter.
All of us understand how difficult things are in Birmingham, and it is the Government’s job to support Birmingham to recover and get services back to normal. There are three strands: regularising the negotiations with the trade unions to find a long-term solution, dealing with routine collections and getting more trucks out of the depot, and dealing with the clean-up of waste that has accumulated on the streets. We are supporting the council in doing that. On the question of mutual aid, any mutual aid that is provided by local authorities will be reimbursed.
I pay tribute to local leaders in Essex and other places for the leadership they have shown to make sure that there is sustainable and accountable local government at the end of the devolution and reorganisation process. The right hon. Member has our absolute commitment that we will work through those issues with local leaders. As for the election question, elections have been postponed for a year, and it is our intention that routine elections will take place as planned.
This morning, firefighters in Birmingham made it plain that they will stand in solidarity with the bin strikers in Birmingham and not collect the rubbish. We know that there are only 17 workers, which means this is a drop in the ocean financially. Given that the Government have said they will do all they can to bring the strike to an end, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that they will force the council to make the payment, and that they will deploy the Army to assist the local charities and organisations that are helping to clear up and need extra support?
The hon. Gentleman does very well to go from zero to 100 pretty quickly on the issue, but let us step back from the immediacy of it. Clearly, we want all parties to be in the room negotiating the underlying pay, terms and conditions dispute that is at play. To be absolutely clear, there has to be a red line. This cannot stray into potentially compromising the equal pay settlement that has been agreed, so that that all begins to unravel. Bear in mind that that has already cost the local authority £1 billion. We support them, and we want people in the room. The deal has to be a sustainable one that will hold.