SEND Provision: South-east England

09:30:00

Before Mike Martin moves the motion, I should say that 16 Members wish to speak, so I will probably have to impose a three-minute time limit after he has spoken. My aim is to try to get everybody in, so if we can cut down on interventions, that should give everybody a chance to speak.

I beg to move, That this House has considered SEND provision in the South East. It is an honour and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I will speak specifically about Kent and my Tunbridge Wells constituency; I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will speak about examples in their constituencies. We are speaking about some of the most vulnerable people we represent and, as the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard, because they see the system from the inside and can see its shortcomings. In Kent, more than 21,000 children have an education, health and care plan—that is 14% above the national average. As a result of rising demand and some mismanagement by the previous Conservative administration, there was a SEND overspend in a recent year of nearly £100 million, which is now being managed down by the Department for Education. At the same time, alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and provide provision. This creates a conflicting pressure. The story is the same for local authorities everywhere where there is rising demand and declining resources. The balancing act required creates a false economy. When children do not get the support they need, they fail in their educational setting, but that means they are less likely to achieve in the world of work and are more likely to become a burden on the state in their later years. So getting this right now creates a long-term economic benefit for our society, and it is not just economically right: it is morally right that we do so to create life chances for the children under our care. To go back to the situation in Kent, under the previous Conservative administration, only 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024, and because of that Kent was put into special measures. I have called a number of times for that status to be continued because there was some improvement, in that the provision of EHCPs within the deadline went up to 65%. Kent was therefore taken out of special measures. But unfortunately, quantity does not equal quality. I do not have time to go into the litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, but they included incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. Often, when families complain about the errors, they are told by Kent county council to go to a tribunal. This is deeply cynical. Kent county council has been using tribunals not as a last resort, but as a tactic to delay, to deter and to exhaust families. In other words, the council is using tribunals to try to get families to give up seeking appropriate support for their children. And it works. Tribunals are utterly gruelling. Families and children spend months preparing for them. The emotional toll is enormous throughout the time they are preparing, and it costs, as they have to get legal advice to go to a tribunal. All the while, they do not know whether, at the end of this year-long process, the child will get the special provision that their EHCP says they require. I have spoken to Matt, one of my constituents, whose daughter Ella has cerebral palsy and has just finished year 4. Her original EHCP was issued when she was at nursery and was recently reissued. This is an example of the problems with EHCPs in Kent: the only change the council made was to replace the word “nursery” with “school”. When the family complained, they were told to go to a tribunal. They declined, for all the reasons I outlined relating to the financial and emotional cost. It later emerged that Ella’s teachers believed that a mainstream school would not meet her needs. Their application for a specialist placement was lodged but rejected by Kent council, which did not consult anyone, including Ella’s teachers or parents. It was purely a paperwork exercise. The family were again told that the only option was to go to a tribunal. At that stage, because it is so important for Ella to get specialist secondary provision for her cerebral palsy, they opted to go to tribunal. They have been given a date in May 2026. Currently, Ella has an insufficient plan because her parents declined to fight the first tribunal. They will have to wait for more than a year to fight the second tribunal, all the while wondering whether they will get the specialist provision that all the experts agree is what Ella needs.

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate; the number of people who wish to speak is a testament to that. As one Kent MP to another, I agree that the problems he is outlining—the inability to access the system because EHCPs and other assessments take so long, and the poor-quality provision when they have been completed—indicate a broken system in Kent. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to see EHCPs done properly, with a substantial increase in pace? We also need an increase in resources, so that the quality of provision following assessment is up to the standard that parents and pupils expect. Getting those two elements of the system right will go a long way towards fixing what is currently broken.

I thank my fellow Kent MP for his intervention; I will address many of those points as I make progress. He is right that there is a reason for the statutory deadline for EHCPs, and it would be nice if local authorities could meet it. To return to tribunals, between 2021 and 2024 Kent council spent more than £2 million on SEND tribunals, of which 98% were successful for the parents. If parents have the money and the emotional bandwidth, and can go to tribunal and fight, they will be successful. But we do not know the percentage of parents who decide that they are not able to put themselves through that process. That is one of the legacies, I am afraid to say, of Conservative mismanagement in Kent. Since Reform took over two months ago, it has gone from bad to worse. A cabinet member resigned within 45 days, which is a day longer than Liz Truss managed, so one assumes his lettuce is still going strong. Another councillor has been suspended and is under investigation by the police. The matter is now before the courts, so I cannot say much more about that, but Members can have a google. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely. That meeting was relevant to this debate, but it is only one among a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government. Reform cannot even organise its own house, let alone grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. I am glad the Government are reviewing the system, because it needs to be reformed, but real change must be driven by the principles that the Lib Dems have articulated time and again. We must listen to the voices of children and families. They do not have all the answers, but they do have insight into how the system works, and we would do well to listen to them. Where appropriate, specialist capacity must be provided for the minority of children who have EHCPs and need specialist support. For the vast majority of children who have special educational needs, we must drive inclusion in mainstream schooling, because that is appropriate. Mainstream schools prepare people for the mainstream world in a way that is more appropriate, provided that there is the extra provision, with teaching assistants and speech and language therapists, that can help the child to thrive in a mainstream setting. We are ready to work with the Government to improve the system. Some of the media reports around the scrapping of EHCPs are concerning. It seems like a bit of a red herring. The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that—and before that we had statements. If we get rid of EHCPs, we will still need a statement of needs for passporting to services. If we scrap EHCPs, what will we replace them with? I am sure the Minister will speak to this in her response to the debate, but we must have an outcomes-based review of the system rather than a Treasury-driven, cost-cutting exercise. I hope the Government will learn from some of their recent travails in that regard.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not fix a financial problem by giving away a right? For many parents and families battling the system, an EHCP is the only protection that a child gets to a right to education.

My grandmother said that the mark of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable—she was wise. She was very active in politics, but for a different party. [Interruption.] She made a journey that many people have made in recent years. Unfortunately, she is dead now. She would be 110 now if she were alive. To return to the theme, it is morally right that we get this right, because these children and families are the most vulnerable among our constituents. It is also economically right, because if the children have the right provision, the parents can continue to work. Without the right provision, one parent will probably not go to work, so that has an immediate economic detriment. Allowing a child to thrive, to be included and to work in society as they get older affects the medium and long-term economic health of our society and our country, so it is both morally right and economically sensible. On that point, I will conclude: every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.

Order. There will be an immediate three-minute limit on speeches.

09:43:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. We are lucky in East Thanet to have several brilliant council-maintained SEND schools: Forelands Field, Laleham Gap, Stone Bay and St Anthony’s. They do brilliant and vital work, despite the incompetence of Kent county council. I know from my casework just how deep the crisis in special educational needs provision runs. In Kent it is particularly acute, because the previous Tory council administration let the crisis spiral out of control. I have constituents who are frustrated by delays to getting EHCPs, parents who are aggravated by poor communication from the council, and others saying they believe that Kent county council is making the appeals unnecessarily difficult. Similarly, far too many tribunals in Kent involve parents appealing the inappropriate allocation of school places. Often, as a result, either the state-maintained schools end up oversubscribed and overcrowded, or the spiralling costs of private provision contribute to the dire financial state of Kent county council. The state-maintained schools are now being put through a wildly inappropriate redesignation of the education and support they will offer, putting suitable educational provision for some of our most vulnerable children even further at risk. The previous Tory administration was forced to apologise after a damning Ofsted report found that the council had “not made sufficient progress” in tackling nine areas that were identified following an inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. The report quoted one parent as saying: “Communication is poor, co-production is non-existent…it feels as though my son’s needs are not being prioritised, and they don’t care. They are incompetent.” I am afraid to say that I do not have any confidence that things will improve under the new Reform administration. In the few months that they have been in power, we have seen important meetings cancelled, cabinet members sacked, councillors suspended and chaos ensuing throughout the council—all while the new council leader went on holiday. Although it is only right that we champion fantastic SEND schools, it is important to acknowledge that many children would be better served by mainstream schools that have adequate SEND support available, creating inclusive environments for children to flourish. While idealistic, this can be a reality. It will require a huge overhaul in the provision of SEND support in schools. We need to make it possible for children who can be in mainstream school to stay in mainstream school with the best support package available, designed around them and their needs. I am glad that the Labour Government are looking into reforming the current system, and I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State for Education say that the Government will strengthen the support available for the children who need it. The crisis in SEND has gone on for far too long. I look forward to seeing the proposals to tackle it and empower the next generation of young people.

09:46:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on setting the scene so well. My contribution to this debate is to support him in his request to his education authority and to outline some of the concerns we have where we are, which are replicated by him and will be replicated by others. The situation back home is no better. The Minister has no responsibility for it—I wish her well in her answers. In Northern Ireland, we have incredible problems with the transformation programme. The budget was cut by 50%—an example of the financial restraints that we are all under, which the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and others referred to. There is a duty of care to children who, due to their educational needs, need that little extra support, and it comes down to money, as most things in the world do. The hon. Gentleman outlined a serious case in his constituency. I have spoken to some of the principals in my constituency of Strangford, who have stated that the current funding is not fit for purpose and that children will be the ones who suffer because of those cuts—a point made by other Members. One teacher said that “it is so difficult when you have a passion for supporting and wanting to do your best for SEN children, but it seems impossible to get the tools to do so. It feels like its always budget cuts and reduced staffing, there is never any good news where you feel inspired to do your best.” That is every teacher who works in the SEND sector. They want to do their best for their children and make sure that the children will be inspired to do their best when they get the opportunity. The other massive question, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells and will be mentioned by others, is about support for the provision of classroom assistants. One-to-one and small group support is crucial but again, unfortunately, the funding is simply not there to sustain their employment. SEND pupils back home already fall behind their peers in other parts of the UK, so we have a big problem, although the Minister’s response will relate to her responsibilities here. My last point is about the hundreds—indeed, thousands—of university students out there with a lifelong dream of working with special needs children in schools. How can we tell them that, once they complete their three to four years of education to do that, the funding is simply not there to sustain a job in that field? Can the Minister give us some idea of what we can do for those who are coming through with the potential to help and educate our young people? We can and must do better. While it is understood that this is a devolved matter for us back home in Northern Ireland, and also for Scotland, our central funding comes from here. I thank the Minister for her contributions and social engagement with the relevant Minister back home. I am very keen to hear what she can do.

09:49:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. In the 12 months since I was elected as the Member for Aylesbury and the villages, I have been struck again and again by the urgent need to reform our SEND system, given the sheer number of people who get in touch having been let down by different parts of the system, whether that is families, teachers, heads, councils or, of course, the young people at the heart of it. In this speech, I will focus on what better SEND provision could look like and make three points. First, provision must be local and mainstream wherever possible. When I talk to parents, they tell me that they want their children to go to their local school and to be part of their community, but too often they are told that their children’s needs are too complex, or that the school just cannot offer the provision that they need. I was heartbroken to hear from a mother whose child was excluded from school, not because of a poor behaviour but just because their complex needs were misunderstood and not supported in the right way. I know it is very difficult for schools too, but we urgently need to support mainstream schools to deliver more inclusive provision. That means funding for adaptations, training and confidence building for teachers, and it probably means drawing on the expertise of specialist providers to help mainstream schools build their capacity and confidence. Secondly, although we should aspire to local mainstream provision wherever possible, there will always be a need for specialist provision for children with the most complex needs. In Aylesbury, we are fortunate to have some really inspiring leaders who are helping to build that capacity. Jane Cole is working night and day to establish a Red Balloon centre for teenagers with special educational needs on Walton Terrace, which will open in September. It is a lovely setting, and a safe and nurturing space. The team at the Chiltern Way academy trust is working to launch a new SEND sixth form to help SEND children to get over the line and into work at the end of their education. It is crucial that we keep building on that. Thirdly, we have to address the crisis in home-to-school transport. So many young people in Aylesbury are going on two or three-hour taxi rides to Oxford or Milton Keynes and beyond. I have heard from families in Aylesbury whose children are left waiting for transport that arrives late or not at all, sometimes with drivers they do not know or in vehicles that are not appropriate. Just imagine telling an autistic child that you do not know whether anyone is coming to collect them or what that journey will be like. Their distress is really palpable. We have to ensure that standards for home-to-school transport are really clear, and that home-to-school transport providers are better held to account. I welcome the Government’s funding commitments in that area already. I really welcome the commitment to reforming the SEND system, and it is right that we will be taking a consultative approach to it. I will be ensuring that in my constituency, people are able to feed in and that, ultimately, we are delivering better results for those parents and young people who desperately need it.

09:52:00

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?

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?

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.

09:57:00

I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he and so many others have said. The fact that we all have similar stories from our constituencies underlines the scale of the challenge. In my constituency, one in five children receives some form of SEND support, and one in 12 has an EHCP. That is far above both the Sussex and national averages. However, I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. At my surgery just last week, I met a couple whose son finally has an EHCP after years of fighting—but there is no place in the local authority to provide it. He will almost certainly remain out of school, joining countless others who, as we have heard, are being let down by a system that too often frustrates and limits, rather than supports and fulfils potential. I do think in this Parliament—and this may be the optimism of a newcomer—we have a real chance, perhaps a final one, to sort this mess out. I welcome the fact that the Government are not ducking the issue, and the cross-party approach that has been taken; the longer we can sustain that, the better. I also recognise the scale of the challenge ahead of us and the need to listen to those most directly affected. That is why, a few months ago, I held a SEND summit in Saltdean, in my constituency, bringing together local parents, councillors, advocates and experts to hear their experiences. In the time I have, I want to outline three of the main takeaways from that summit. First is the need to dramatically improve SEND training in schools—in particular, to introduce mandatory and expert SEND training for all new teachers as part of initial teacher training, and then as part of continuous teaching development. Of course, that must go alongside wider reforms to schools and the curriculum to ensure that more children stay in and flourish. Mandatory SEND training would support early identification, allowing proper plans to be put in place sooner. It would boost professional standards and end the postcode lottery in how neighbouring schools approach SEND so differently. There is a Bill before the House, which I have co-sponsored with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), that would achieve this. Will the Minister support it? The second major recommendation was to enhance the parental voice. That is really important and too often ignored. SEND families include not only those receiving support, but those who know how the system works and how it fails. Our summit discussed the idea of regional champions—SEND advocates, perhaps across new devolved areas—who could bring this together on a larger scale. Can the Minister say more about how she will listen to parental voices as these reforms come forward and how she will work with the sector? Thirdly, underpinning all the other points, is the need for a cultural change on how Government, Parliament and local authorities approach SEND. We need to focus less on proving exceptionalism and the limitations of SEND children, and more on how we fulfil the potential of every child; end the adversarial culture and lack of accountability that pervades in too many cases, and instead work with parents to navigate it; and, crucially, shift SEND services away from emergency, when there is already proof of trauma, to early intervention. There is a lot to unpack in those points, but they are the three main solutions that we have, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.

10:00:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. Since my election last year, I have visited most of the schools in my constituency. That has been one of the nicest parts of my new job, but it has been less nice to hear about the tremendous pressure that schools face in coping with the ever-increasing demands of special educational needs. The crisis has now extended well beyond the SEND sector into mainstream schooling. I heard how children who have been refused a place in specialist schools because their needs are considered too great have instead been placed in ordinary mainstream schools. If a specialist school cannot cope, how on earth do we expect a regular school to manage? The stats from my local education authority, West Sussex county council, do not look good. For the last full calendar year available it completed just 3.4% of EHCPs within the statutory 20-week deadline, which is one of the worst rates in the country. Even if a child is lucky enough to get an EHCP, that does not mean they are guaranteed the support they are supposed to get. West Sussex has been run by a Conservative administration for many years; I would argue that it has always prioritised lower council tax bills over running adequate services. Despite that caution—that ingrained cost-cutting inclination—it has still run into severe financial difficulties. It has a deficit of £59 million from 2023-34 for the high needs block, and that is forecast to rise to an unsustainable overspend of £224 million by next year. Every week I see the human cost of that; problems with SEND access are the single biggest issue in my postbag. Last Friday at my surgery in north Horsham, I met with yet another distressing case. Graci is 14 years old. She has a diagnosis of autism, ADHD, dyslexia and suspected postural tachycardia syndrome, and she experiences significant pain, fatigue and sensory overload. But she is a bright girl with great potential, and she has already managed to take two GCSEs, despite the fact that she is now fully home educated. The local authority has twice refused to even assess her, which leaves her entirely without funded support as she approaches year 10. Her mother says that Graci needs an immediate, meaningful intervention if her future is to be preserved. At the age of just 14, Graci feels that she has been written off and left to put together her own DIY education, funded by her lone parent—her mother—who has to work full time. In terms of Government action, we must not see a repeat of what just happened with the welfare Bill, where they tried to solve demand for personal independence payments by simply cutting access. We need to rediscover the value of investing in people, not just things. Children such as Graci are not problems; they are fantastic assets to society, if only we can give them the break that they need. We need to sort this issue out.

10:03:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. He is a fellow Kent MP who regularly speaks about these issues—it is one of his passions. I will echo many of the views that have already been expressed. With 21,000 students on EHCPs, Kent stands among the worst in the country, with 13% completed within the statutory deadline—in Medway it is even worse, at 12%. Across the county we see those stark figures, but they represent the real human lives that we see in our casework every single week, from the child who does not get to school within the statutory deadline of 90 minutes, or the child who is not given access in the classroom through the specialist teaching assistant provision that they need, to the parents who have to give up their jobs in some cases and go on to benefits to look after their children and get them into those schools. Every single Member of Parliament has received testimony in their inbox about the problem. I know that the Government inherited an appalling legacy from the previous Government—it was basically admitted that SEND provision was an absolute mess. Although I blame the Tories on Kent county council for the problem, it is not unique to any one council or to the control of any council; it is a systemic and structural problem as a result of demand not having been met over many years. In my area, it is manifestly worse because the chaotic Reform council has cancelled meetings about education and SEND, ambushed its own transport cabinet member and fired him on the spot, and suspended councillors already. It is turning into a nightmare because councillors cannot even manage their own house, let alone focus on the priorities of SEN students and deal with the plurality of residents.

Many constituents have raised concerns about the new Reform administration’s plans in my constituency. It is even thinking about cutting transport for vulnerable young people who cannot get to school. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very concerning that the council, without a proper plan, has brought in an external agency to look at how to save money, and that it is unacceptable to cut the transport budget for those vulnerable children?

The day after the change of control of the council, party political auditors came in. There has been a communications exercise highlighting the SEND transport budget for cuts, but we do not know what those cuts will be, and there has been no communication with residents, causing fear to spread about whether their children will be affected. This is not just about my hon. Friend’s constituents in Ashford, but about residents in Margate, Maidstone and Tonbridge—the problem is manifest across the entire county. A number of solutions have been proposed, so I would like to ask the Minister a series of questions about them. As the Government have now created three-year budget cycles, can something similar be done to secure long-term funding for councils, so that we do not have to rely on the safety valve going forward? Although I agree that students need to be in an appropriate landscape, private provision for SEND is sometimes 10 times more expensive for each child, which is not sustainable when the budget is going up by so much. What could we do to transfer those children and bolster mainstream schools? I know some excellent examples of that, such as at Bradfields academy in my constituency, which is receiving Building Schools for the Future funding under this Government. How can we expand that principle into other mainstream schools, so that we can provide specialist autism and ADHD units? How do we align services regionally? In my area, child and adolescent mental health services are fundamentally failing and we have had to transfer them back in-house to the Kent mental health trust. How can we ensure that CAMHS is really working? Finally, the appeals system is failing across some counties, so how can we ensure it is fit for purpose and does not cost councils millions of pounds to sustain? These are my questions and I hope the Minister can answer them.

10:08:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this important debate. In my constituency of Mid Sussex, families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities are being let down by a broken system that is exhausting parents, bankrupting councils and demoralising teachers. We have heard rumours of changes coming to the SEND system, but let us be clear: if we have learned one thing from how the welfare Bill was handled, it is that what politicians call rolling the pitch causes fear, confusion and anxiety for those who may be impacted.

I sure that, like me, the hon. Member has taken up many cases with her local education authority on behalf of parents and children. I have not heard a single parent or child say to me that the current system is working; I keep hearing them say that the system is broken. The Government have been clear that a legal right to additional support for SEND children will be maintained, but that we have to reform the system. Surely she agrees with that?

I thank the right hon. Member, but there are questions and uncertainty because the future of EHCPs and what may replace them has not been made clear. That is causing genuine concern for campaigners and people who have children with special needs. In West Sussex, approximately a third of children with an EHCP require transport to and from school. SEND transport is budgeted to cost the county council £31.3 million this year, which is up from £13.5 million five years ago—every year, it spends more than its budget in this area. Managing that provision is hugely complex for councils and requires judgment on the individual needs of a child, including their need for an escort and/or private transport, as well as the individual home-to-school route that they travel. Does the Minister agree that that is one of the less considered pressures on council budgets in relation to SEND provision, particularly in larger, rural county council authorities? Does she also agree that the Government need to consider how to mitigate those costs in any review of SEND provision in order for the reforms to be successful? The system is not delivering for children, families or local authorities. Any changes must be rooted in children’s rights and common sense, and not in arbitrary cost-cutting exercises. One example that instils hope and sets an example is Woodlands Meed in Burgess Hill, which provides an education for those with special needs. After a decade of delay because of a string of broken promises from the Conservatives on West Sussex county council, years of tireless campaigning by governors, teachers, parents and local Liberal Democrat councillors led to Woodlands Meed finally being completed with the opening last year of the new college building. I visited the new college site a few months ago, and saw at first hand what a brilliant and inspiring environment it provides. It means that pupils can seamlessly transfer from the school to the college, avoiding the loss of friendships and long journeys to other providers. Prior to that, the school had to make very difficult decisions each year about whether it could continue to meet the needs of the children moving from the school to the college. In some cases, children had to be sent to a school away from their friends and community. That would, for example, affect a child with Duchenne muscular dystrophy who could thrive at the school intellectually but would have to be moved to a site with the hygiene, therapeutic and accessible facilities that they would have needed for their physical disabilities. The building of a local facility at Burgess Hill saves money in the long term, and provides a better experience for students and families. We need more examples like that, and more fantastic places like Woodlands Meed. Families have waited too long for a system that works, and change is overdue—it is time we delivered that change.

10:12:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. SEND comes up in every surgery I hold, every time I knock on doors and at every coffee morning, as it will for hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hear heartbreaking stories of parents fighting to get the support their children need. Families in Bracknell Forest have been struggling for a decade or more to access those services. When a local area SEND inspection recently highlighted gaps in provision, it did not say anything that parents and carers did not know from bitter personal experience. During the election, I committed that this Labour Government would fix the broken SEND system that is failing families in Bracknell Forest and across the country, and I am proud that we are doing just that. I understand why parents are anxious, however, because they have been failed by the system for so long that it is understandable that trust in it is so low. It is important that we start from the principle that we need to see more support for more children more quickly, moving from a system where a crisis point has to be reached before any support is given to one where early intervention is the priority. It is also essential that we protect parents’ legal rights to support for their children. I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for listening to families, children and the sector, because it is vital that we get this right and take families with us as we make the changes we need to make. This Labour Government have already delivered so much. They have delivered £1 billion more into the high needs budget, including £2.2 million more for extra SEND provision in Bracknell Forest. They have funded family hubs in Bracknell Forest where the previous Government did not and empowered them to offer more early years support, particularly for SEND. They have rolled out the highly successful PINS—partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—programme to more schools and secured £760 million in transformation funding, because reforming the SEND system will require spending more money. It is not and cannot be a cost-saving exercise. I thank the Minister for meeting me last week to hear about the concerns of local families. She will not be surprised to hear that I will continue to raise with her and the Secretary of State the concerns of parents and carers in Bracknell Forest, so that their voices can be heard as plans are developed. She will also not be surprised to hear me raise one final issue: support for a new SEND school for students with high needs autism at Buckler’s Park, which was promised by the previous Government without a penny to pay for it. Although more children could and should be supported in mainstream education, and I was proud to open a new specialist resource provision at Sandhurst school just the other month, there will always be those who need additional support that can be provided only at a special school. I know that the Minister will consider that as part of the reforms.

10:15:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate. Although Torbay is not in the south-east, I am sure that a lot of our SEND issues are reflected there. A recent Ofsted report on our SEND provision identified widespread failings for children with SEND and disabilities. Although a lot of colleagues have highlighted challenges with local authorities, we must also reflect that the health service needs to play its part in driving the positive change that we need for our young people. Only yesterday, health bosses failed to turn up and play their part at a continuous improvement meeting for youngsters in Torbay, even though that Ofsted report was under discussion. I would like to know how the Minister is holding the health system to account on this issue, not just local authorities and education departments. As an example, I am aware of one failing in Torbay where a decision should have been made by the end of March for a youngster on where their next year’s placement would start in September. They were only told the day before they started their GCSEs that their placement was going to be changed, which, un-shockingly, sent them into a meltdown, and they underperformed massively. I would particularly like to hear the Minister’s reflections on a couple of areas. One is the safety valve system. That is very much financially driven, but what investigations has the Minister made into how that system may have driven any improvement of the outcomes of SEND pupils, or not? What are the Minister’s reflections on the future of the safety valve system, because it has some real challenges? I would also welcome the Minister’s reflections on the ladder system that is applied in Torbay, in which the level of intervention with a child is increased quietly, bit by bit, from mainstream education to a high level of intervention, and so on, until the right level is found. But to achieve that level, the youngster has to have failed repeatedly in school. That reinforces trauma both for the youngster and the family involved, through failure after failure. Surely that ladder system cannot be appropriate for the youngsters or their families. It seems a very wicked way, rather than sending those youngsters directly into the appropriate places. I will give a couple of examples from my constituency. Rachel has to home tutor her youngster because provision was withdrawn. Shaan had to give up work because there was inadequate provision for her youngster. A non-verbal autistic youngster had two really good offers for education, but neither was accepted by the local authority. I look forward to the Minister’s reflections because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells identified, these are some of the most vulnerable youngsters in our communities, and they deserve better.

10:18:00

I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this debate. The crisis in SEND provision is inextricable from the crisis in health and social care, and it is a shameful legacy of the neglect of the austerity years, but funding is not the only issue. What we see with SEND in West Sussex happens because education, health and care are not integrated. SEND provision suffers because there has been little to no working relationship between the local education authority and the integrated care system. As a doctor, it pains me to ask this, but where is the health in education, health and care plans? There is little parity of responsibility for outcomes, and no joined-up work towards shared goals. The profound neglect of specialist services, such as speech and language services, that support early health needs to be addressed, and health also needs to be far better integrated into the EHCP system. For our schools and families in Worthing West, Sussex devolution is an opportunity to create a system that actually works, where education, health and social care colleagues work together on the issues and outcomes that families and schools so desperately need solving. Yes, we need to address the demand for SEND provision through proper investment in services, preventive healthcare and investment in schools, and yes, we need early intervention and proper access to specialist services, but we also need a functioning system where education and early years have a strategic voice outside siloed local education authorities. In West Sussex, we have seen years of county council delays and mismanagement, and a complete breakdown in support for SEND children, their families and schools. Like all the other hon. Members here, I have had the privilege of visiting schools and colleges across my constituency. Without exception, they have outstanding teachers and leaders crying out for more SEND support, whether it be the need for specialist staff and training, or for physical space and facilities. Many of them have been waiting for years for decisions from West Sussex county council to build these facilities, let alone actually seeing any funding to directly address the issues that out-of-county settings have with transport costs, which continue to spiral beyond control. Worthing High, for example, has been unable to move forward with planned expansions of its specialist support centre due to local authority delays and budget reductions. The school finds itself battling the local authority and unable to meet the demand for special social communication support without additional space, which it has actually identified. Northbrook college has had to find funding for increased levels of physical and medical need, with EHCP provisions that it is not equipped to provide, despite its best efforts. Oak Grove college is an excellent example of a local special needs provider, but it, too, is waiting on a decision to expand—again, into land that it has identified—and on funding that has been promised. In the meantime, it has taken the excellent, innovative step of providing support outreach to mainstream schools from within its capacity. The SEND system is not working, and neither is the two-tier system of local authorities. It is time for a new model of regional school boards, with increased accountability, shared goals and, most importantly, multi-year funding settlements to address issues of demand and supply of SEND services—

Order. I am sorry, but there is a three-minute limit.

Oh, I am sorry, Sir Edward.

It’s all right—it is a very good speech, but we have to keep to time.

10:22:00

Thank you, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this important and timely debate. We all know that the SEND system is broken in this country—a point even acknowledged by the Prime Minister at a recent Prime Minister’s questions. Families in my constituency and across the south-east are in desperate need. Children are being let down, and councils such as East Sussex county council are under unbearable financial strain. Across my constituency, in Seaford, Lewes, Newhaven and Colgate, and across our villages, the reality is stark, and children are forced to travel unacceptable distances. One little boy in my constituency travels 56 miles daily to school in Hastings because school provision simply does not exist locally. We should bear in mind that East Sussex has a higher than average number of specialist provision schools, yet this is still taking place in the area. Multiple children still have no places for September. Imagine the anxiety and distress being faced by families right now. Colleagues have mentioned individuals coming to their surgeries to talk about this issue. Almost weekly at my advice surgeries, distressed parents speak to me about SEND provision in our area and a lack of spaces. Indeed, schools, including primary schools, in particular, have been in touch, concerned with the level of intake of children with special educational needs and disabilities—some are quite acute—and worried about how they are going to cope in the coming academic year. A local teacher I spoke to put it very well in relation to one of the structural challenges facing our SEND system: “Parents feel they have no choice but to fight for a full specialist place, because the so-called ‘facility’ secondaries can’t meet their needs.” The said that the primary to secondary “transition planning is broken and it leaves children vulnerable.” The situation facing one of my local families epitomises the crisis. Their child is severely disabled and cognitively delayed, and needs specialist schooling, yet despite unanimous agreement from the parents, nursery and mainstream primary school, the local authority insists that he attend a mainstream secondary school. It is July, and after months of battling bureaucracy, he still has no suitable place for September. Across East Sussex, nearly 5,000 pupils have EHCPs. Labour’s plan to strip away the legally enforceable rights that families rely on could leave more than 1,400 EHCP pupils in mainstream East Sussex schools vulnerable. We must be clear that children’s rights cannot be rolled back. We urgently call for a new national SEND body to oversee and fund the most complex cases, removing the postcode lottery once and for all. We need immediate investment in specialist and mainstream education, teacher training and support for local authorities. The system must put children and families first, because every child deserves better than what the previous Government offered them.

10:25:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this really important debate. We all know that too many children are being failed by a system that is under-resourced and facing unprecedented demand. Policy failures over many years have meant that parents and carers often see little option but to fight for an EHCP, as that is considered the only way to secure the wraparound support that their child needs. Who would not fight for their child? But we are in the worst of all worlds, where few are content with the current state of the SEND system in Kent and Medway, and across the wider south-east. Before I highlight some examples of how the system is not working in Medway, I pay tribute to all the professionals working in the sector, whose passion is to support children and young people to get the help they need. The system is really letting them down, too. Years of chronic underfunding of local government under the previous Government, combined with a surge in demand, have created a perfect storm, which is contributing to pushing many of our councils in the south-east to the brink financially. In Rochester and Strood, SEND is the second main reason, after housing issues, why constituents contact me. Parents and carers are waiting years for a SEND diagnosis. Children are languishing on waiting lists while their future life opportunities are being impacted, because they are not getting the support they need to fulfil their potential. One issue that I will highlight in particular, as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for skills, careers and employment, is the difficulty that lots of councils have in recruiting enough educational psychologists, because of funding cuts in previous years for educational psychology degrees. The same applies across many sectors of our economy; we are simply not investing enough in the staff we need to perform the critical functions in our society, such as the professionals employed in our SEND system. That and other factors lead to excessive delays in EHCPs being finalised, often well beyond the legal deadline. I have recently been contacted by parents in my constituency who have experienced a 62-week delay, which is beyond the 20-week legal deadline for issuing an EHCP for their child. I am sure that that is by no means a unique example. We know that this situation is taking a toll on children in terms of their emotional wellbeing and high anxiety levels. It also has an impact on parents and their ability to work. Recent polling from Sense found that two in five parents with a disabled child are educating their child at home due to a lack of appropriate provision. The system is failing and it is incumbent on all of us to challenge it. I welcome the Government’s commitment to reform. I understand that this has created some anxieties, so I welcome the comments from Ministers in recent weeks, and I look forward to hearing further comments from the Minister today to allay any concerns. In conclusion, I emphasise that we must improve the quality of SEND provision and make sure that no child is left behind. We particularly need to focus on early intervention, as others have said, on better-equipped teachers and teaching assistants in mainstream schools, and on the needs of individual children, rather than diagnosis. I particularly look forward to the recommendations from the Education Committee, which is conducting a very comprehensive review into this topic.

10:28:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this hugely important debate. Like many other Members here, SEND is probably the subject that I get the most emails about, and it is very closely related to children’s mental health, which I will start by discussing. The process of struggling to access an educational support plan starts right from trying to get a diagnosis. It is difficult to get a diagnosis through CAMHS for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or for being on the autism spectrum. Delays of more than two years are not only awful for individuals, but make up a huge chunk of their time in school. If a child is eight or nine years old and has to wait two years for diagnosis, it is very difficult for them to make up for that lost time. Although we should be clear that ADHD and being on the autism spectrum are not themselves mental health issues, if such conditions are unrecognised and undiagnosed, and are not supported in school, that can lead to mental health issues, including children feeling inadequate and struggling to achieve what they should. That causes a lot of stress and anxiety.

In Surrey, for example, 1,800 children with special educational needs are missing education because there is no provision. They are sliding into poor mental health as a result, and that needs to stop. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I completely agree. The issue that everyone has brought up today is that the system is adversarial right from the point that parents try to get a diagnosis in the first place to show that their child needs support. When they finally do, they then have to fight tooth and nail—including in time-wasting tribunals, which take a large emotional and financial toll—to get the support that their child is entitled to. Even once the child gets the support package required, that is not guaranteed all the way through schooling. Let me give a bit of an extreme example: I was recently contacted by a parent whose child, who has just one week to go in primary school, still does not know where he will go to secondary school. The parent and the headteacher of the primary school have asked continually, but there is no clear response. In this instance, Hampshire county council has failed to plan on time and ignored parental choice. It is insisting at the last minute on a wholly unsuitable mainstream school, which has no record that the child is coming and says that it cannot meet his needs—and we are talking here about a parent who managed get the package required for their child in primary school. I could talk about this for half an hour, given the amount of casework I have. There is a huge issue about how we pay for SEND, but we must also consider what happens if we do not pay for it, as some other Members have touched on. The issue is a little like free school meals: if a child goes to school either hungry, or with undiagnosed learning needs that are not being met, they are clearly not going to fulfil their full educational potential. They will not get a job that pays as well as one they could otherwise have got and they will be more likely to end up on welfare throughout the rest of their life. We have a prison in Winchester, and some 25% of the prison population are diagnosed with ADHD, compared with 3% to 4% of the general population, while 9% have autism spectrum disorder, compared with 1% to 2% of the general population. It costs £50,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give people the support they need in school to help them to make better life choices. If we did that, it would be better for those individuals and more cost effective for the taxpayer in the long run.

10:32:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this crucial debate. The number of people in the Chamber and the power of the testimony that we have heard are testament to how important the issue is to our constituents across the country. Since I was elected as MP for Surrey Heath, special educational needs has been the single biggest issue to dominate my email inbox. That is a refrain that we have heard from many other Members. It is bigger than housing and the cost of living crisis—it is even bigger than potholes. That is because, certainly in Surrey, there is a deep and ongoing SEND crisis. Right now, I have more than 140 active cases involving children with special educational needs, many because Surrey county council has issued EHCPs in the wrong names, describing the wrong conditions or offering wrong and inappropriate packages of support. Those EHCPs often come only after weeks and months of parents fighting and advocating for their children and asking SEND co-ordinators at the schools to do the same. Over the past three years, Surrey has had the highest number of tribunal appeals anywhere in the country—a fact that, very unfortunately, it chose to hide from its own scrutiny committee for more than 14 months and that the leader of Surrey county council denied in writing to Surrey’s Lib Dem MPs. Children, broken and neglected by the system, have attempted suicide. Parents, shattered by endless roadblocks and barriers, become permanent carers for their children, who cannot be placed in schools—and at what economic cost? SENCOs and teachers, already stretched to breaking point, spend their days chasing paperwork instead of supporting pupils. An ITV investigation recently revealed that when parents lodged official complaints, Surrey county council—with a sleight of hand and a swift move of the pen—simply reclassified those complaints as inquiries in order to massage those problematic figures downwards. Zooming out across England, councils are carrying a hidden SEND deficit of almost £5 billion, as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) said, parked off their books by a temporary accounting override that ends in March 2026. When that expires, more than 60 local authorities face the risk of insolvency overnight. Ministers promised a White Paper this spring to recalibrate the system; now we are told that the Department for Education cannot commit to publishing plans for at least six months. Many parents consider that uncertainty an insult. Their lives revolve around EHCP reviews, tribunal appeals and statutory deadlines. Rumours abound that the Government may attempt to scale back or even scrap the EHCP and replace it with a narrower, potentially cheaper framework. Let me be absolutely clear: they cannot, and should not, remove statutory protections before they have built the capacity to replace them. Removing EHCP rights in a vacuum would strand families in legal and emotional limbo and potentially drive councils even closer to collapse. The Liberal Democrats believe that reform of the SEND system is long overdue—I think that is a position shared across the House—and to guide that reform we have set out a five-point plan. I want to highlight just three of those key points. First, in any changes, we must put children and families at the forefront of reform. Reform cannot be done to families; it must be done with them. They are essential partners in redesigning a system that shapes their children’s futures. Secondly, we must recognise that inclusion and specialist support are not opposing ideas. We need both inclusion in mainstream and specialist capacity where each is appropriate. They need to be boosted in parallel. Right now, 67 specialist free schools approved by the Government are currently stuck in limbo waiting to open. That is 67 communities left in the lurch. At the same time, councils should be empowered to open specialist hubs within mainstream schools and allowed to get on with it without tripping over Government red tape. Inclusion only works when it is resourced. Without resource, it becomes exclusion by another name. Finally, we must support local government to do its job. That means reforming a system where private SEND providers, too often backed by hedge funds, extract eye-watering profits. I have heard in my own area of fees being charged in excess of £130,000 a year for access to independent private provision—more than double the average cost of educating a child with special educational needs. That is not an attack on the independent sector, but it is an attack on profiteering on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to measure accountability in these schools? Where does accountability sit, and how do parents know that their children are achieving in those schools?

Accountability is very often opacity. I have certainly seen examples of schools charging those fees I have just mentioned, in excess of £130,000 a year, with extremely opaque governance structures, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. We also need a fair funding guarantee and ringfenced central support for every child whose assessed needs exceed a defined cost threshold. Councils should never be forced to choose between their budgets and a child’s future. I say to the Minister, in the spirit of cross-party support and in the desire to ensure a better system for the future, “We share your concern about the broken system—but any reform must start with strengthening rights, not dismantling them.” That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a new national SEND body, an independent commission to oversee the most complex cases, guarantees of fair funding and performance tracking across England. I hope that we can come together across this House to publish a White Paper within three months, with clear timelines, resourcing and genuine co-production with parents and families. We need to extend the high-needs deficit override until councils are properly supported. Let us open every delayed special school in this Parliament, so that no child is left without a place. We must seize this opportunity, this moment, to get SEND reform right, before any more children are failed in Surrey or across these isles.

10:39:00

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for obtaining this important and very timely debate on SEND provision in the south-east. First, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a serving Surrey county councillor. I was also a member of the Public Accounts Committee during its inquiry on support for children and young people with special educational needs. SEND support in the south-east is in crisis. Children are not getting the support that they are legally entitled to at the right time, which is driving poorer outcomes and putting untold stress on families. My inbox, like those of many Members here, is full of examples: parents battling to secure much-needed support for their child to thrive, yet facing incompetence and fundamental misunderstandings of the law by the council; carers forced to give up work to stay at home with their child while they languish without school provision; and families driven to the brink of despair by the adversarial system. Those issues must be addressed, and fast, for the sake of our children and their loved ones. Despite significant increases in recent years in SEND funding, to £10.7 billion, there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people since 2019. Only half of EHCPs are issued within the 20-week statutory deadline, resulting in children having to wait too long for support. Shockingly, in about 98% of cases that go to a tribunal, the tribunal finds in favour of the family, indicating that something is going very wrong in the original decision-making process. It is clear that the overall system is not fit for purpose and is inadequately funded, making local authorities’ already difficult job in this area even harder. Worryingly, a statutory override system has been put in place, which essentially allows the ever-growing SEND deficit on local authority books to be ignored. According to the recent Public Accounts Committee report, nearly half of all English local authorities are at risk of “effectively going bankrupt” when the statutory override ends.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will not, because of the time—we all have lots of questions for the Minister that we want to get through. The statutory override was due to end in 2026, but the Government have decided to extend that accounting trick for another two years. I cannot emphasise enough to the Minister that we are on the brink of a financial disaster in local government. Accounting fudges only delay the inevitable and make the problem even worse—and it will not just be SEND services impacted when local authorities are issuing section 114 notices; it will be all local authority services. Before I put some questions to the Minister on her proposed changes to the SEND system, I want to address some of the issues raised about Surrey county council specifically. Members have already laid out clearly some of the challenges experienced by Surrey parents trying to secure SEND support for their child. I too share their concerns and agree that that is unacceptable. Like them, I have spent much time grappling with the council to ensure that it delivers the right support to children in Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, so I have seen at first hand deadlines being missed, information being withheld, decisions being delayed and essential support not being provided. Although I recognise the challenges and pressures on the council from an insufficiently funded and less than optimal system, the fact is that the law is clear on support for children with SEND. I thank parents and groups that have fought hard in recent years to shine a light on the issues both in Surrey and beyond. I want to make special mention of the Let Us Learn Too campaign, whose founder, Hayley Harding, is one of my constituents. That important campaign started in 2021 and has sought to raise as an issue the difficulties that disabled people and young people have been experiencing in accessing education. It is important to say that they were extremely disappointed at the lack of detail coming out of the hearing of the Education Committee on 1 July about the forthcoming changes. To return to the situation in Surrey specifically, I welcome the recent appointment of Councillor Jonathan Hulley with a specific focus on addressing the issues and delivering a better, more effective SEND service. One of his first actions has been to propose boosting the future annual SEND budget by 42% in order to substantially increase staff. As part of the plans, the number of caseworkers will be increased from 81 to 111, resulting in caseloads being reduced from over 200 per staff member currently to 150. Also, 30 new assessment officers will be put in place to support families during the 20-week process, and a mediation and dispute resolution officer team will be established to support early resolution of cases where mediation or a tribunal has been requested. The proposals will increase SEND staff by 103 permanent positions—an 80% overall increase in SEND staff. That is all very positive, and I welcome Surrey’s actions to address the issues raised, but we are still in the dark about national reforms and how they might impact plans such as those at local authority level. Without firm information, we see speculation starting. Last week, the future of SEND support was splashed across the front pages of three national newspapers. Despite the off-the-record briefings from the Department, Government Front Benchers have failed to give parents any reassurance on their plans. Parents are rightly anxious about what any change could mean for their child and the support they are entitled to. I have a series of questions for the Minister. When will we finally see the White Paper? Does she anticipate a change to the Children and Families Act 2014 as a result of the Government’s proposed reforms? Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes? Will EHCPs be part of the plan going forward? Will there be any new capital funding for new special schools, or does the Department plan to build capacity in mainstream schools? Is the Department engaging with parents, schools, colleges and local government leaders ahead of the publication of the White Paper to ensure their support? Will the White Paper include reforms to school transportation? Is work under way in the Department to look at early identification, and what role will support staff and access to specialist interventions, such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists, play? Given that any changes will be a worry to many constituents up and down the country, can the Minister confirm today that MPs will be given a chance to vote on any proposed changes? I will now allow time for the Minister to go through that list of questions.

10:46:00

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing this debate about an incredibly important subject. He, like many others here today, has a real interest in supporting families in his constituency to navigate the complex and challenging special educational needs and disabilities system. I know that he has met with the regional director for the south-east, Dame Kate Dethridge, to raise directly with her the concerns on a local level. I want to be clear from the outset that improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. I have to say that I was a bit surprised by the speech made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) and what appeared to be some amnesia about the record that has been inherited. I appreciate that people do not want to talk about the past; they want to talk about the future and how we are going to fix it, and that is what we are focused on. However, we have to be careful to put this issue into the context of the huge challenge that we are currently facing and the absolutely abysmal legacy. It was put on the “too difficult” pile for far too long—it was somebody else’s children who were facing these challenges. We grasped the issue immediately on coming into Government and are determined to deliver on it because we want all children to receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives. That message came across clearly in the contributions today. The first thing we did when we came into Government was move the responsibility for special educational needs into the schools group within the Department and into the role of the Minister for Schools because we recognise that that is where the challenges lie. However, it is also where many of the chances to turn around opportunities for children lie. In recent weeks and months—indeed, since I took this role—we have engaged with and listened to children, young people and parents. We have sought to understand what they want to see change and how we can together co-produce an education system that will lead to better experiences for them and their children and fundamentally drive improved outcomes for children. For too long, the attainment gap between children with special educational needs and their peers has been too large. It is pervasive and has not shifted in the right direction at all. For example, last month we joined 80 parents at a meeting of the National Network of Parent Carer Forums steering group, alongside key representatives from the Disabled Children’s Partnership, to listen to the current challenges and what they want to see change. We plan to do more of that in the lead-up to publishing the schools White Paper in the autumn, and we will continue to listen beyond that. It is important that we co-produce any reform of the system so that we rebuild the trust of children, parents and families—a trust that has been so badly broken over the past 14 years.

What I have heard from parents in Gravesham, and what I know from my time on Kent county council, is that we have sleepwalked into this crisis. For decades, we have not been listening to the needs of young people. Parents simply want a lawful system—one applied lawfully, with support given at the right time. Will the Minister give some assurance that that is coming soon?

Yes, we absolutely recognise that the current system is really difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate, and it is not delivering the outcomes we want to see. While we will set out the longer-term approach to reform in the schools White Paper in the autumn, we are clear that the changes we make must improve support for families, stop parents from having to fight for that support and education, and protect the effective provision already in place. We have given that reassurance. We know that sustainable reform will take some time, but we have already begun the work to ensure that children and young people are getting the support they need. We have introduced the regional improvements for standards and excellence advisers to work with mainstream schools, where we know outcomes need to be better. We want to ensure that all pupils in those schools can achieve and thrive, whatever their background, so we are targeting the support where that challenge is currently greatest. I recently had the opportunity to see that in action in Kent, when I visited Astor secondary school in Dover with Sir Kevan Collins. We met school and trust leaders, as well as the RISE adviser and the supporting organisation, Mulberry Schools Trust. We listened intently to the school’s experience of the programme so far. It is early days, but looking incredibly positive and it was good to see that support being put in place for schools that have been struggling for far too long. We are also building a robust evidence base on what works to drive inclusive education, including through the creation of the expert advisory group for inclusion, led by Tom Rees. We are extending the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—the PINS programme—to a further cohort of around 1,200 additional mainstream primary schools, to build that teacher and staff capacity to identify and better meet the needs of neurodivergent children in mainstream primary schools. The programme is supported by the Department for Education and the Department for Health, because we absolutely recognise the challenges outlined by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), about making sure that we work together with the Department for Health where that is needed.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, but I am conscious of time and want to respond to all the issues raised.

Can the Minister provide reassurance on how she is holding health services to account? They can be part of the solution, if they play their part.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. What we want is a system in which local partners work in partnership. Currently, that is inspected by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. I will come to the particular examples in Kent and the south-east that hon. Members have raised. We want to support and challenge local authorities and health authorities to ensure that partnership is real, working and—most of all—delivering outcomes for children. Everything we do is focused on improving those outcomes, which is why we are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision. We know that early intervention prevents unmet need from escalating. It supports children to achieve their goals alongside their peers, and we have a clear target for more children to meet their early development goals. We are absolutely laser-focused on improving those outcomes for children. On accountability and inspection, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission jointly inspected the local SEND provision. I read with great concern the inspection reports for Oxfordshire and Bracknell Forest, both of which have been inspected under the new Ofsted-CQC framework. They identified significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes for children with SEND in the local areas. The issues that have been raised are incredibly serious, and DfE officials and NHS England advisers are meeting regularly with leaders and representatives from schools, colleges and parent-carer forums to continue to review and challenge the progress against the improvement plans. The Department has also appointed SEND advisers to provide advice and challenge to local leaders. That is happening is Bracknell Forest, Kent, Surrey, Slough, Oxfordshire, West Sussex, Medway, Milton Keynes, and the Isle of Wight. There are also additional packages of support to provide training and advice in those local areas. It is vital that rapid action is taken to improve SEND services where weaknesses are identified, and that leaders accept collective responsibility and accountability for delivering on these improvements. There is a relentless focus on driving improvement, supporting where we can and where necessary, but also ensuring that good practice, where it emerges, is spread. That is what we want to focus on with our reforms. The number of education, health and care plans has increased each year since they were introduced in 2014. As of January 2025, there were over 630,000 children and young people with an EHCP—an increase of 10% in the last year alone. As a result of flaws and lack of capacity in the system to meet lower-level need, additional strain has been placed on specialist services, which has had a detrimental impact on families’ experiences of accessing support and contributed to creating an unsustainable system. Many parents feel that the only way they can get any support for their child is by going through the EHCP process. However, independently published insights show that extensive improvements to the system, using early intervention along with better resourcing of mainstream schools, could create much better outcomes for children. I know that is what many constituents want to see, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and for East Thanet (Ms Billington). The insights show that more children and young people could have their needs met in a mainstream setting, rather than a specialist placement. That would ensure that they could go to school locally and help to tackle some of the incredible transport challenges and costs, as well as the time that young people spend travelling around. They should be able to go to their local school. We also know that it takes a vast workforce, from teachers to teaching assistants, early years educators and health professionals, to help children thrive. We are investing of each one of these to improve outcomes and experiences across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) said, high-quality teaching is central to ensuring that pupils with SEND are given the best possible opportunities to achieve. That is why we are implementing a coherent offer of high-quality teacher development for all teachers. It begins with their initial teaching training and goes into their early career teaching support, so that all teachers have the right skills and support to enable them to support students with special educational needs. It will enable teachers to identify those needs and to signpost if needed, as well as to adapt their teaching according to different learning abilities.

Order. The Minister needs to give the Member in charge some time to respond.

Okay, Sir Edward. I take the points about the specialist teaching workforce, and how we need to invest in that. Finally, on increasing the capacity in the system, we have already allocated £740 million to capital funding for high-needs capital allocations. Kent county council has been given £24 million as part of that funding. The funding is to create additional capacity in the system to ensure that mainstream inclusion can be a reality for schools—the capital allocation is there to make that happen. I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells again for bringing forward this debate. My final word, as always, goes to those working across the education, health and care systems in the interests of our children and young people, both in Kent and the south-east and right across the country. They want to deliver the best for our children, and we as a Government want to support them to do so. I thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter to the House.

10:59:00

I thank the Minister for her remarks, as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the Lib Dem spokes- person, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton). I thank the hon. Members for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) for their comments. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (John Milne), for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Lewes (James MacCleary) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers). There is a lot of commonality here; this is not a particularly party political issue. I say to the Minister that we all wish her well in these reforms. We want them to work, and we hope that this debate has been constructive in giving her a greater understanding of the issues that our constituents face. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered SEND provision in the South East.