SEND Provision: Kent

Lauren Sullivan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this incredibly important debate. We have had a number of debates in this Chamber about the SEND crisis, particularly in Kent.

I speak as the former leader of the opposition at Kent county council and I served on the SEND scrutiny committee, which looked at the SEND measures. I have also been a teacher and have worked in schools with young people with special educational needs.

I want to go through the various aspects of the problem, because the system is incredibly complicated. Like everybody here, I have met parents in utter desperation, in tears—in a place of hopelessness—because there is nowhere else to go. When they pick up the phone or send an email, there is no answer. I have brought them together with We Are Beams, a fantastic charity supporting our constituents in north Kent, and they have unburdened themselves and shared their frustration about the lack of communication and incorrect information being provided. My hon. and learned Friend spoke about EHCPs not being updated, which means that they are not implemented rightly in the classroom, so the young person does not get the right support. Parents feel gaslit; they feel that they have no one on their side. It is absolutely heartbreaking.

Children and young people I have met feel that they are not getting the right information and that they are not being included. They are missing out on key aspects of socialisation—the key skills that will enable them to work in the future. We know that early intervention at a young age can help to get young people and children on track to thrive. It is well established now that we are not all neurotypical; some of us are neuroatypical or have additional needs. An education system should support, encourage and bring out those wonderful talents, but sadly I fear that that is not happening.

I was a teacher under the last Government, and saw some of the changes that the then Education Secretary Michael Gove brought in. I remember starting a year with five statemented children in my year 8 mixed-ability class. I had two teaching assistants who were brilliant at helping me navigate the wonders of science education—but by the end of that year, those teaching assistants were taken out because the funding was not there, and the Education Endowment Fund said that TAs were high cost but low value. It could not have been more wrong. Years later, we can see that specialist teaching assistants are often the bedrock supporting our teachers. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) said some fantastic things about teachers and their workloads; it is a team effort.

I have visited a number of schools. Ifield is of course a fantastic special educational needs school, but there are so many young people there that they need more space. I have visited mainstream schools and seen how they are catering for children with special educational needs, but they lack the specialist TAs and the resources to help. I have had parents tell me about schools that are off-rolling students because they cannot meet their needs. There is nothing in writing; they are merely saying, “Please do not enrol your child here” at parents’ evenings. That cannot be fair and right.

The challenge that some heads pose to me is league tables and percentages of students passing their exams. They can either keep their exam grades up and high, or they can be inclusive—I am not defending that argument; I am just saying it has been presented to me. I do not think it is fair, and I think we should all be there to help young people succeed no matter where they come from or what their needs are.

There are parents, young people and schools, but the other part of the picture is the council. When I sat on the SEND scrutiny committee, it was striking even back then—maybe four or five years ago—that the caseworkers for SEND had double the number of recommended cases from the Government that they should have had. One SEND caseworker should in theory, by the Government’s then standards, have had 125 children to monitor and update plans for. In Kent at that time, it was double that. Although those caseworkers are inundated with parents and needs, they have been positioned as the gatekeepers rather than the supporters. A large part of what I hear from parents is that they do not feel that anybody is on their side. If there are to be changes to the system, we need to position caseworkers so that people can trust that they have their back and that they have their children’s best interests at heart.

The other paramount thing that I saw was the changes to the free school and academy system, which meant that local authorities could no longer build schools based on needs. It meant there was a delay in schools—including specialist schools—coming forward. Thankfully, we have a few green lights in Kent, but they should have been here years ago. Because the ability of local authorities to plan, prepare for and build schools was taken away, Kent was reliant on private specialist schools.

However, I fear that the council’s improvement notice may have been lifted in error when the Government came in last summer. A target of reducing the number of children with EHCPs on the council’s books, set under the last Government, is incredibly perverse. How does that put the needs of young people first? How can the parents of Kent have faith in the system? The council is under an improvement plan to reduce the number of children with EHCPs, yet parents and schools believe that having an EHCP will entitle them to further support. It is a complete perversion.

I say to our wonderful Minister that the message I have heard from parents and schools is that we must not water down the legal protections. They are long fought for and hard won, and when they work, they work really well. The problem is with their implementation. If there are any announcements or communications, the Government must be really clear about how they will preserve the legal protections.

Many aspects of the curriculum review can be welcomed. I would reduce the exams, for instance—there is an awful lot of pressure on youngsters at the moment, so that would be a good thing—but I encourage the Minister to look at other ways to demonstrate the sheer talent we have in this country, such as coursework and practical tasks. I am sure she knows never to underestimate the scale of the challenge; it is vast, but we are ready to help and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to speak in this important debate. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing it and for his opening remarks, and I am grateful to all Members who have contributed constructively.

This is not the first time that the Minister and I have discussed SEND in the House, and I suspect it will not be the last. It is hugely important. Every Member who has spoken has set out their experience of similar SEND issues, and our inboxes are inundated with messages about them, especially from parents who need our support. Providing for children with special educational needs is one of the most complex issues facing the country today.

Before I talk about SEND in Kent in depth, I want to put on the record my concerns about the way that Kent county council is being run. It is now under Reform’s control, and it is clearly a blueprint for what will happen wherever Reform is in charge. We should not forget that senior members of Reform UK have claimed that SEND is being

“hijacked by…parents who are abusing the system”.

As I have said before in this Chamber, that is hugely disrespectful, and I believe apologies are necessary. Issues such as SEND are of profound concern to all our constituents, and such remarks are far from serious; they suggest that there is no real thinking going on in Reform about how to deal with one of modern Britain’s most important issues.

Kent county council is yet to set out a clear plan for meeting residents’ needs, and that has been the case since Reform took over earlier this year. Families are understandably anxious, given that the council is failing to provide certainty on vital services. We should focus on that seriously, because the pattern could be replicated right across the country if Reform takes charge of more councils.

The pattern is already being replicated in other Reform-run councils. Closest to my constituency, the Reform leader of Warwickshire county council recently declared an emergency over SEND funding. I worry about the council’s approach to education, because the council leader recently suggested that children as young as eight should have to walk more than 5 miles to school. Clearly, that is not a serious way to look at our approach to education, or to cut costs, if that is the intention.

In their campaigns last year, many Reform candidates said they wanted to cut council tax, but they have now discovered what we already knew: that a huge amount is spent on special educational needs. They have no credible plan for cutting council tax. In fact, many Reform-led councils are touting council tax rises of about 10%, so we should focus on that and hold them to account. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe said explicitly that residents will face higher taxes.

It is no secret that many local authorities, including Kent, face significant pressure in meeting rising SEND needs. To put it in perspective, Kent spends more on SEND than the England and south-east averages, and more than the 10 nearest comparable councils. In 2021-22, SEND pressure resulted in a £97 million overspend. In government, we recognised the seriousness of the challenge, not just for Kent but across the board, and introduced the safety valve programme to ensure that councils were not left to face the crisis alone. In Kent, that programme made great progress, which shows that the Department for Education and local authorities can work together.

The agreement with the then Conservative-led Kent county council was backed by £140 million from the Department for Education and £82 million from the council. It set out a longer-term plan to expand specialist provision, strengthen mainstream support, review EHCP processes and improve preparation for adulthood. Under the Conservatives, Kent submitted the required monitoring reports. The Department accepted them, and every scheduled payment was released. That shows that Kent county council was starting to deliver on its side of the agreement in challenging circumstances.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

When the previous Conservative Government introduced the safety valve scheme, which was essentially a blank cheque or a credit card, did they have a plan for how the money would be paid back?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I did not have the education portfolio at that time, so my remarks on that will be limited. We can agree that the system is and was under great strain; that is no secret. That is why I have said previously that it requires a cross-party solution. We will have to work together, because the challenges we faced will also be faced by the Reform council and the Labour Government. The hon. Lady will recognise that the circumstances were challenging and that Government money was put forward.

I want to ask the Minister, in the same vein that the hon. Lady put that point to me, whether she can provide clarity on what the Government will do to ensure that local authorities remain solvent and are not forced into section 114 notices as they look at SEND reform. Will the Government extend the statutory override, which is due to expire in 2026, to give councils certainty?

As progress is made in the SEND field, there is real concern about the delivery of special free schools. I will highlight those in Swanley and Whitstable, where families were promised places. It is clear from Kent county council’s response to the recent inquiry by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), that the hold-up lies with the Department for Education. If we are to support children with SEND, and the Government say that is a priority, why are they not acting on that? We have a similar instance in Solihull borough that I am told is also being held up at the Department. Can the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the Swanley school will open by 2027? Is she in a position today to issue a clear timetable on that? If not, I am happy for her to write to me. She knows that I will certainly write to her to chase answers to those questions. Those promises were made to children and their families, and anything short of that would be a betrayal.

In Kent and local authority areas across the country, the issue of SEND continues to cause deep stress and anxiety. The demand for SEND provision in Kent has been rising, especially in the post-covid world. Many families are already facing long delays, so parents are understandably anxious about proposed changes that might affect their children. The Minister knows that because her first outing was at a well-attended SEND debate. According to official DFE data, there are 54,497 pupils with SEND in Kent—that includes EHCP and non-EHCP special educational needs—and more than 6,600 of them are pupils in the independent sector. That means that 10.8% of SEND pupils in Kent are in independent schools. The Minister knows that I have been very vocal on the Education Secretary’s vindictive decision to impose an education tax on our constituents. Has the Minister considered the consequences of that for SEND pupils who are forced to leave the independent sector if independent schools are forced to close? I hope she has some data on that.

The point was made by the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) that parents should not feel blindsided. As the Government come forward with plans, communication is really important. There is also concern about the scrapping of EHCPs. Those are not just legal documents; they are lifelines that provide tailored support and set out binding commitments from schools, health services and care providers. Sixty per cent of children with an EHCP in England are in mainstream schools, yet Ministers have failed to clarify whether they will receive full support under the reforms. This is really important and I encourage the Minister to answer that point.

Unfortunately, anxieties have been further exacerbated by the delay in the SEND White Paper, which has been pushed to the new year. We know that SEND is not a new problem; we are holding debates and tabling parliamentary questions on the matter. Can the Minister today confirm a specific date for publication of the schools White Paper, and does she have any update on the future of EHCPs and how SEND will be provided for in future? As I said, parents and students in Kent deserve answers. They are clearly not getting leadership from the Reform-led council. I ask the Minister to commit to changing course and giving parents the clarity they deserve.

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing this important debate and bringing the voices of young people, parents and teachers in Kent into Parliament so powerfully.

I am grateful to all the Kent MPs who have engaged so widely with their constituents. I have received many letters and reports from those here and others who could not attend today, setting out some of the concerns we have heard. Some key themes, which I have heard time and again, include parents feeling that they have to battle through the system in order to get support; the lack of early intervention and help; and concerns about communication and parents not being listened to.

I was pleased to see Members from further afield—from Wokingham and even Northern Ireland—join the debate. It is telling that we saw more representation here today from Northern Ireland than we did from Reform, which is running Kent county council. I share some of the concerns that I think Members collectively have raised about the language being used by national Reform politicians—language about the system being “hijacked” and attacking parents and sometimes children. It is very difficult for families to have confidence when their legitimate fight for support for their children is being attacked.

I am deeply committed to working alongside families. I assure the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) that I wholeheartedly understand the urgency and the need for reform. As I have said before, I ran a council and I saw every day the huge pressures in the system. I have talked to parents, young people and teachers across the country and heard some of the same stories and concerns. We need to change things, but, as the hon. Member said, we need to work with them, because we saw what happened when the system did not really think about the consequences of decisions. The last Government left office talking about a “lose, lose, lose” system, but we want a system that allows young people to thrive, gives parents confidence in their children’s support and allows teachers and other professionals to give young people the support they need. We are working intensively with parents, teachers and other parts of the system to get this right.

We will bring forward our wider reforms as quickly as we can, but we are not waiting for those reforms in order to act. We have already begun making changes, including creating new places in special schools through a £740 million capital investment for 2025-26, of which £24 million has been allocated to Kent county council. We have heard about the need to have resource bases in communities so children do not have to travel for support, so that investment is incredibly important. I will write to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) about the free schools that he mentioned, and I am sure that he will follow up if that is not speedy enough.

We are investing in multimillion-pound programmes such as the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools and early language support for every child—new partnerships at a local level that bring together support—and reinvesting in early intervention, because we know how important early years support is for young people’s long-term outcomes. We are making sure, as we roll out the Best Start hubs, that there is specialist SEND support in them to intervene and support families as early as possible. We have worked with Ofsted to create changes in accountability and we are firmly focused on inclusion within the school system. It should not be possible for people to get a good mark from Ofsted if they are not delivering on inclusion.

As I have said, we are taking forward further work around co-creation, working with families and experts around the country, to make sure that we are getting reform right. However, we have already set out some clear principles: supporting early intervention and help; moving to greater inclusion so that more children can be educated locally, close to their families; ensuring fairness, because I have heard from many about a postcode lottery and different support in different parts of the country; and ensuring that the support that is in place is well evidenced and consistent. This is a shared endeavour that includes health, local government, schools and communities. We all need to work together to support young people to thrive.

We heard in some contributions about interventions that have already happened within Kent. Kent’s SEND services were inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission in January 2019. That inspection identified nine significant areas of weakness requiring the local area to produce a written statement of action. A visit in 2022 judged that the area had not made sufficient progress in addressing any of its weaknesses. The council was issued with an improvement notice in March 2023. The progress was closely monitored and in August 2024, following a robust review, the Department lifted the improvement notice on the basis that Kent county council had met the conditions set out within it.

I assure the Members who raised concerns about the improvement notice being lifted that it does not mean that scrutiny has been lifted. We are working very closely to maintain that oversight of services and drive further improvement to make sure that every young person with special educational needs has access to high-quality services. That includes regular review meetings, attendance at Kent’s SEND partnership boards, close working with NHS England and the continued support of a DFE-commissioned SEND adviser. We take seriously all the points that have been made today.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

I am grateful for the assurance that scrutiny is still in operation. How can constituents and parents find out about the improvement plan and the scrutiny so that they feel that the pressure is still on?

[Georgia Gould]

As an action from today, I commit to write to MPs setting out more detail about that continuing scrutiny so that they can share it with their constituents.

Wider questions were raised about the curriculum and assessment review and ensuring that the curriculum and the provision in school support inclusion. I hope that my hon. Friend has read the Government’s response, which talks about not only some of the pressures that she mentioned, but the importance of enrichment. In Camden, whose council I used to lead, there is a school that has a phrase: “School should be unmissable”. We want to ensure that young people have high standards and the academic basis that they need, but also experiences in the arts, the outdoors and civic education. Those wider reasons to come to school are so important for a broad range of young people.

I thank Members for this important debate. It is an ongoing conversation and I welcome all the contributions that have been made. I am very committed to working cross-party on this issue: I had a meeting with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) this morning to talk about his advocacy and I will continue to hear from Members on both sides of the House. This is about the future of our young people and it is critical that we get it right, so I am keen to hear from everyone and to work in partnership with parents and young people. I look forward to continuing this conversation in Kent and beyond.