SEND Funding

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

14:01

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the distribution of SEND funding.

I am delighted to have secured this debate, as it gives us an opportunity to highlight the situation we are facing in England, where children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left behind due to the inherent regional inequality in the high-needs national funding formula. There is a bigger issue. The more typical thing we talk about is the overall quantum of spending based on overall need, but too little attention is given to the distribution of the funding that exists, whether in healthcare, education, policing or otherwise. I know I am not the only Member being turned to by constituents at their wits’ end, trying to navigate what feels to be a broken system; I thank colleagues across the House for their continued advocacy on behalf of some of the most vulnerable children in all our communities.

My argument is a simple yet deeply important one: the current model of SEND funding is not only inconsistent but in too many cases profoundly unfair. It fails to account for genuine levels of need, the realities faced by families, and the systemic pressures that schools and local authorities are under. Unless that changes, we will continue to fail children who rely on Members to make their case and to get this right.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a profoundly important point. There is a real and urgent need to reform the SEND system, and that of course includes how it is funded. Does he welcome the £750 million ringfenced in yesterday’s spring statement for exactly that: to transform our SEND system to make it fairer for parents, better for young people and more sustainable for the future?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman takes me to a point further on in my speech, but he is absolutely right. He makes the case to the Minister, exactly as I intend to: given that we have a broken distribution system and given the severity of its impact on so many children and families, will she ensure that the money in the spending review is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, used precisely for that purpose and that we target those who are most left behind?

At the heart of this debate, I am calling on the Government to identify and commit to a clear baseline cost for delivering effective SEND support per pupil. The figure must reflect what it genuinely takes, in both urban and rural settings, to support children with complex needs across the country. Only then can we ensure that no child’s opportunity is limited by where they live.

I want to bring to the attention of the House a stark example that illustrates the postcode lottery in SEND funding: the disparity between the East Riding of Yorkshire, which covers my own constituency of Beverley and Holderness, at the lowest end of the funding spectrum—we are the lowest funded in the country—and the London borough of Camden, which happens to be the highest. Camden, by any standard, is a well-resourced inner-city borough with strong proximity to specialist services. It currently receives £3,564.95 of SEND funding for each pupil in its area. Meanwhile, in East Riding—a rural area with fewer nearby services, longer travel distances and greater challenges in recruitment and retention—per-pupil high-needs funding comes in at around £968. That is a gap of over £2,500 for every single child requiring extra support. In real terms, if East Riding’s funding was matched not with Camden but with the second most poorly funded local authority, we would have an extra £18 million per year on top of the £43 million we receive in the higher needs block—£18 million extra. If we were brought into line with Camden, we would have an extra £100 million.

Some might argue that urban areas face different pressures, and of course they do, but let us be clear: the cost of delivering quality SEND provision in rural areas is not lower. In fact, it is often significantly higher. Transport costs—colleagues across the House will be aware of children who have to be moved great distances to access their support—for children with complex needs can be astronomical. Recruiting specialist staff, such as special educational needs co-ordinators, to work in isolated schools is a constant challenge. When services such as educational psychologists or speech and language therapists are not based locally, schools and families face unacceptable delays in accessing the assessments needed to unlock further support. Why, then, is rurality not factored into the high-needs funding formula?

What that means in practice is that two children with identical needs, living in different parts of the country, will receive vastly different levels of support. One might have their education, health and care plan reviewed on time, access in-school provision, and benefit from local therapy services. The other might be left waiting months for assessment, with a school already at breaking point trying to bridge the gap. This disparity will have a long-term detriment to children’s outcomes.

This is not a criticism of any local authority—Camden, like all areas, faces its own pressures and challenges—but the system we have allows such disparities to persist without sufficient recourse or flexibility. These widely varying funding allocations create a two-tiered system in what should be a national commitment. Colleagues from across the House will be familiar with constituents whose stories lay bare the human cost of this imbalance, whether it is parents desperately trying to navigate the EHCP system, the lack of suitable school places nearby to cope with the measures required by their EHCP, or schools struggling to cope.

This is also certainly not a party political point. Successive Governments have sat over funding disparities and struggled with the politics. They have been unprepared to reallocate, perhaps for understandable reasons. The people you take money from tend to be much angrier than the people you give it to are happy: one marches on Westminster, the other grunts and says, “About time.” It is a truly difficult thing. I have been in this place for 20 years and have struggled to get Ministers to accept reallocation and reapportionment. Rather than asking for that demand, which I have so far failed in 20 years of effort to get anybody to implement, I hope to come up with something more practical, if compromised as a result.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend on his length of service to this House.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend, the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip—and indeed my Whip—is very welcome. Thanks very much; I am grateful for that.

We have this issue of how we fix a broken and clearly unfair system. Newer colleagues, and there are many of them in the House, might think, “Well, surely people would want to fix it. There is no perfect system and there will always be dispute, but if the Government did a map of need—fundamentally, an assessment of what fair would look like—and then mapped against that line where everyone was, newer Members might think, “The Government might be prepared to do something with those who are most overfunded to help compensate the underfunded.” My experience is that they do not and will not, so I will discuss practical ways of getting change. What typically happens is that despite Ministers’ talk in debates like this one, we end up with the Treasury at a spending occasion like yesterday giving 3%; if inflation is 2.5%, it gives 3% to everybody. That means that the cash gap between one authority and another grows, and in a sense the injustice grows with it.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for leading the debate. I am conscious that York is in the bottom third, and that the level of children being diagnosed with SEND is rising sharply. Does he agree that in order to future-proof the system, we need to look at a more holistic, therapeutic and nurturing approach to our education system so that all children benefit? I looked at the situation in Sweden and saw how that not only brought down costs, but greatly benefited the children there.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is two things: she is quite right, and she is tempting me down a path I do not want to go down—I want to focus on the distribution, because it does not get the attention. However, she is absolutely right. Labour criticises the performance of the then Conservative Government, but I think funding for SEND actually grew 60% from 2019 to 2024. She is right that it is not about who is in government—somehow, we need to find ways of capping this demand, which will outstrip any Chancellor, however well intentioned. That is an issue.

I will turn back to the point on which I am focusing, which is distribution. If demand in a system is growing at a scale that no Government can meet, distribution, although ignored, becomes even more important. If a system is straining and struggling, having grossly unfair distribution that no one seeks to or is able to defend—it is not a case of one party or the other claiming they are getting it right; they recognise it is unjust—is a major mistake, and we must find ways to balance it over time. It is not obvious at the moment that anyone is able to stop this imbalance between supply, which is so small, and demand, which is so big.

Colleagues will have local champions back home who do their best to fight against regional inequalities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Councillor Victoria Aitken in the East Riding, who is the portfolio holder responsible for SEND, and her role with the f40 group. For any newer Members present, the f40 group fights on the issues of and focuses on the funding formula disparities. It is technical and quite dull, but it is vital for the provision of services to our constituents. In her role with the f40 group, Victoria has been tireless in campaigning to address these issues within the SEND system, but sadly, the work of Victoria and others like her is not enough.

I want to share the story of my constituent Ellie and her son Harry, who is nine and a half years old and has ADHD. From the very start of his education—as early as foundation stage—both Ellie and his teachers recognised that Harry needed extra support. However, without an EHCP in place, the help he required simply was not available, despite the school doing all that it could.

Last summer, as Harry was preparing to enter year 4, Ellie contacted me in desperation. Harry was still only just beginning to read, and was spending his break times playing with children much younger than himself. Ellie had fought tirelessly to secure an assessment so that he could access one-to-one support, but the process was gruelling, and caseworkers were at capacity. Ellie had to give up her job to dedicate herself to the countless hours needed to complete forms, lodge appeals, chase responses and provide support at home. She put her own education on hold and, in her own words, has had to “battle the system” every step of the way.

Just last week, after years of delay, Harry was finally granted an EHCP. However, the school still does not know when the funding will arrive to put the support, which has now been recognised, in place. Harry will start year 5 this September, several years behind his peers. Ellie describes Harry as a kind and lovely boy who has been failed—not by his school, but by a system that delays, deflects and denies the support that children like Harry need. Yet Ellie remains determined to keep fighting, no matter the cost to her or her family, to ensure that Harry gets the help he deserves.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I declare my usual interests: my wife is a special educational needs co-ordinator at a local authority school in our patch, and my daughter has an EHCP and a complex set of disabilities, so I have absolutely fought this battle myself. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just described is a broken system that needs reform, and that whatever we see in the White Paper in the autumn, we will hopefully see reform that relies in particular on more training for all teachers across the profession? I think that is some of what he has just described.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a capacity issue, as I say, relating to demand. Getting people—not just specialists, but the whole system and everyone in it—to have a better understanding is really important. The hon. Gentleman will see that in his constituency, as I do in mine. It is not enough just to have the SENCO; it is about getting the leadership, the training and the right protocols in place to ensure that the whole system is better able to meet the needs of children, and that will then reduce some of the other impacts, including cost impacts, on the system.

In recent weeks, I had the privilege of visiting Inmans primary school in Hedon, where staff spoke candidly about the mounting pressure created by soaring demand for SEND provision—pressures that far exceed the funding currently available. At St Mary’s school in Beverley, headteacher Laura Wallis expressed her deep concern at the growing gap between pupils’ needs and the resources she has at her disposal, making it ever-more difficult to provide the tailored support every child deserves.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I have met people from about 18 schools, both here in Westminster and at home in the constituency, and, more recently, have heard the voices of young people on SEND in Doncaster. At every single meeting, the first questions asked are about support, capacity, and young adults’ transition into work. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that to get the funding right, we need to listen to the voices of people with experience—those at the grassroots—to ensure that we understand their ideas and solutions, and direct funding into the right places?

[Graham Stuart]

I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a powerful point. My appeal to colleagues in the Chamber—particularly, perhaps, to newer Members —is to focus on the distribution. It can be quite hard to get one’s head around the many issues that are involved—the overall national issues of quantum, service delivery, training and the rest of it—and distribution can easily get left behind, yet it is vital. I cannot say that it brings a great deal of joy or satisfaction to Members of Parliament to pursue it, because so many people look blank when it is mentioned, but distribution is important, and I hope that colleagues will want to take on the issue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Very quickly, some children thrive academically, while some thrive practically. It is all about finding the right place for them, whether as a doctor, a mechanic, a plasterer or a farmer. When it comes to checking on a child’s ability, and ensuring that they find their place, we must acknowledge that there is not a standard box for all; it is different for each child.

[Graham Stuart]

As usual, the hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head.

Many across this House will recognise the stories of the schools I have just mentioned, because the same thing is playing out in constituencies across the country. Parents are becoming de facto care co-ordinators; schools are dipping into ever-shrinking budgets to fund specialist provision; and local authorities are caught between legal responsibilities and budgetary reality.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I was contacted by a parent in my constituency who was forced to navigate a complex and lengthy tribunal process simply to challenge the decision to place her autistic son in a mainstream school, only to have the hearing cancelled at the last moment, and a place at a special school offered. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that education, health and care plans are not a silver bullet, that we should not need complex legal processes to ensure that young people can access good early support, that support must meet the young person’s needs, and that the money must follow the child or young person?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was chairing the Education Committee when the coalition Government introduced the reforms that brought in EHCPs as a replacement for statements. I remember thinking then that lots of good improvements were made—there were very sincere Ministers working hard at it, and they brought in a better system—but the fundamentals remained as they were. One of the aims was to get away from an adversarial, legalistic process, in which articulate and typically better-off people were able to use sharp elbows to get their child what they needed, but pity the inarticulate single mother unable to engage with the system. What would she get? The then Government’s promise was to make that better, but the fundamentals remained.

If demand is so much bigger than supply, this is what we will get. With the best will in the world, local authorities will end up being defensive and saying no as a matter of course, and will give way only when they are forced to. Am I going on too long, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I could not possibly say.

[Graham Stuart]

For years, I have fought for a fairer distribution of SEND funding, and for years, I have got nowhere, as successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—have lacked the courage to rebalance the system. I hope Labour will not lack that courage again. I do not pretend to have all the answers to this problem, but I know that we must work out what fairness looks like and the minimum per-pupil cost required for SEND support, and commit to meeting that basic need, if not immediately, then at least over time.

This Government need to be prepared to take from those above the baseline and give to those below. Would they be prepared to do that? No previous Government have been, but perhaps this one will. If not, we must find some other way. We could identify, through a mapping exercise, those who have been left behind, and we could say as a matter of principle that whenever there is an above-inflation increase in the Budget—such as the £760 million that the Chancellor came up with in the spending review yesterday—it will always be used first and foremost to lift up those below the line, while doing nothing to cause a below-inflation increase for those who are above the line.

Even if the Minister agrees with that idea, there will still be crisis management. How do we begin to tackle systemic inequality? Above all, it is vital that we revisit the high needs national funding formula, because it does not sufficiently account for regional cost differences, or for the genuine cost of delivering services in dispersed or under-served areas. The formula must reflect both complexity of need and the geography of the area in which that need arises. It needs to account for the added cost of providing services in rural areas. It is vital, too, that the formula moves away from the historical spend factor—the part of the formula that bases current funding on what a local authority spent on SEND provision in the 2018-19 financial year, and how it administratively described that spend. The formula means that a large section of funding is determined by pre-covid demand for SEND services, despite a post-pandemic spike.

The Government have stated their intention to remove that factor, but progress has been painfully slow. Every year that we fail to act, we condemn another group of children with complex needs to struggling without the support that they deserve. The issue is not simply how much money is available; it is also how accessible and responsive the system is. Families are forced into adversarial processes, schools are burdened with bureaucracy, and children are too often treated as numbers on a spreadsheet, rather than individuals with potential. We need a system that is focused on early intervention, not crisis management.

I am here not simply to raise a problem, but to call for action. That action would ensure a fairer, more transparent funding formula that reflects real-world costs across the country, accounting for rurality and discounting historical spend. It would establish a clear baseline per-pupil cost for delivering effective SEND support, and ensure that every local authority was brought up to that level—if not quickly, then at least over time. It would create better accountability mechanisms, so that areas that are underperforming on delivering SEND provision can be supported and, where necessary, challenged. At the very least, I ask that the Government recognise the injustice of the system and the inequality that it produces.

Those are not radical asks; they are practical, deliverable reforms that would make a meaningful difference for my constituents in Beverley and Holderness—and, I believe and hope, across the rest of the country. We have a duty as parliamentarians to ensure that every child, regardless of background, diagnosis, or postcode, has the support that they need to thrive. The disparities in SEND funding undermine that duty. If we believe in a truly inclusive education system, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the structural inequities built into the funding model. We owe it to our constituents, our schools and, most importantly, the children to fix this.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform Members that even with an immediate three-minute time limit, I will still not be able to get everyone in.

14:23

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. This issue affects families in Huddersfield and across the country. I recently met SEND parents from Huddersfield to hear their experiences of the system. They are trying to do the right thing, and to get the right support for their children, but too often the system works against them. They told me that the system is difficult to navigate, especially the process of gaining an EHCP and any subsequent appeals processes. I also heard from parents who were struggling to access home-to-education transport, or who were not able to get their children into school due to poor mental health or it being the incorrect educational settings.

These stories are not one-offs. This is happening to too many families across the country, and it is clear that something has to change. I welcome the work of local support services, such as Kirklees Information, Advice and Support Service, which offers free and impartial advice, but it is dealing with a growing number of inquiries. In Huddersfield, we see growing demand for specialist support, but the funding is not keeping pace with that demand. Local services are stretched, schools are under pressure, and families are left to navigate a complex and often frustrating system.

Last week, I visited the fantastic Southgate school, a specialist school for children with complex special educational needs. I spent time with its amazing pupils and teaching staff. The teaching and support staff are passionate about their work, but they spoke to me about the increasing complexities that they are dealing with, and their struggle to access all the emotional and mental health support that they need for their pupils. The transition to post-16 support is a particular issue. They also asked me to raise the need to look again at the pay scale for support staff, who are valued members of the team. The issue of pay is impacting retention.

As the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has said, there is a postcode lottery. Whether a child gets the help that they need often depends on local resources, not their actual needs. We need to take into account wider need, deprivation and the complexity of children’s circumstances. I welcome the Government’s recent moves to improve SEND provision. They include: injecting an additional £1 billion into services; investing £740 million in adapting classrooms and building specialist facilities; and restructuring the Department for Education to put SEND at its heart. Local authorities like Kirklees council need the tools and resources to respond properly to the challenges. Without a sustainable funding formula, local authorities will struggle to provide timely solutions.

Schools want to do the right thing, as do councils, but they are often forced to make impossible choices, and that leaves families to pick up the pieces. We need a long-term plan that gives certainty to local areas and puts the voices of parents, carers and children at the heart of decision making.

14:26

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate, and for his work on this issue. According to the latest figures, there are around 1.7 million school pupils in England with identified special educational needs. That equates to 18% of all pupils. Of those pupils with identified SEN, around 1.2 million receive SEN support, and around 400,000 have EHCPs.

In Huntingdon, the schools that I represent have expressed many concerns about the whole SEND system, and funding consistently underlies many of the issues that they face. Schools pay the first £6,000 towards meeting the outcomes of an education, health and care plan. The rest of the funding is topped up by the local authority. Often the funding provided does not cover the cost that the school incurs in supporting children with needs. I urge the Government to address that as a matter of urgency, as this is stopping schools from providing help to children suspected of requiring SEND support. I thank Yasmine Trace, the headteacher of Sawtry infant school, and Jo Dyke, the school’s SEND co-ordinator, for highlighting this matter. I know that they speak on behalf of other schools in Huntingdon, and across the country.

The unacceptably long wait to obtain an EHCP in Huntingdon—one child at Wheatfields primary school waited 62 weeks for a draft—has led many desperate parents to seek to fund them themselves. The cost of a private educational psychologist’s assessment in Huntingdon varies, depending on the services required and the provider, but it might be in the range of £900 for a full assessment, or £450 for an assessment of an under-three. For example, a full assessment could be £775 with a £400 deposit, and one provider offers an assessment for £900 with a £400 deposit. These figures are a significant barrier for most families that I represent. It is yet another burden for parents, and yet another reason why we need more support on offer.

The Government have hinted at sweeping changes to the EHCP system, and I would welcome further detail and clarity for the many parents, carers and teachers in Huntingdon who are uncertain about what these changes will mean. There is a fear among parents that the rug will be pulled from under their feet. I would welcome it if the Minister could confirm the ongoing support for EHCPs going forward.

To conclude, I want all children to get the education, care and support that they need. There are a growing number of children with SEND, and we must adapt to ensure that they are catered for and do not fall by the wayside. I would welcome plans from the Government on how they will support schools in meeting the costs of EHCPs—or of whatever they are replaced with. I wish to hear that parents will be supported throughout the process, and that the Government will not force parents down expensive routes, which most of them cannot afford, to ensure that their children get the education and support that they need.

14:29

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). As it has for many Members, this issue has become a quiet emergency in my constituency; Hertfordshire faces many of the challenges with the funding and delivery of SEND provision that other parts of the country are grappling with.

SEND support should be a lifeline that enables a child to reach their potential, regardless of their diagnosis or circumstances. In Hertfordshire, the system is creaking. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission have said that there are “widespread and systematic failings”, and too many families are losing out as a result.

I have raised a number of stories in the past of constituents who are dealing with this issue. Today I bring to the House the story of my constituent Sarah, who recently told me about her daughter Grace. Grace suffers from avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, alongside autism and dyslexia. After a long and traumatic journey through the NHS, made harder by the lack of a national care pathway for ARFID, Grace spent six weeks at Watford general hospital and a further nine weeks at a mental health unit in Great Ormond Street. Her condition has thankfully stabilised, but her recovery remains fragile. Now her mother Sarah is facing the daunting challenge of securing an appropriate education. She is applying for an EHCP and has requested a place in a specialist setting that would meet Grace’s needs, but like many schools it is oversubscribed.

A mainstream environment, crowded and overwhelming, would simply be unworkable for Grace, whose previous experiences in school have left long-lasting trauma. Sarah is even considering moving countries in search of suitable provision. This is not an isolated case. Families in Hertfordshire are telling us time and again that the system is failing the children who sit in these so-called grey areas—children who require more than mainstream education can offer but who do not meet the thresholds for the few specialist placements available. Hertfordshire is ranked 148th out of 150 local authorities in per-head high-needs funding. Just 7.5% of our local education budget goes to SEND, well below the national average of 11.5%. We are also facing a projected £30 million deficit in the SEND budget this year.

I finish by thanking Ministers for their engagement on this issue, and for meeting me and other Hertfordshire Labour MPs. I know that the hon. Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) and for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) have also been diligently raising these issues. I am glad that the Government are now looking at the national funding formula and how it might be revised, which I hope will mean that Hertfordshire ends up with more support. I congratulate the Government on their pledge to invest an additional £1 billion into high-needs funding, and I look forward to seeing how this benefits all our children.

14:32

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Hampshire is a county that falls into the f40 group, which are areas that receive some of the lowest per-pupil funding in the country. This disparity is hitting pupils with special educational needs and disabilities the hardest. The cumulative deficit in Hampshire for the dedicated schools grant now sits at £86.1 million. That is not just a number on a spreadsheet but a daily reality in schools across my constituency.

Despite having to find the first £6,000 of funding for every EHCP, schools in North East Hampshire, as with elsewhere, are bending over backwards to do everything they can to support these pupils. A headteacher in my constituency recently explained to me that their budgets this year are so tight, and they have made every efficiency that they can, that they will be forced to reduce the amount of support for the children who do not have an EHCP but who do have additional needs. What is the sense in that, when we know that early intervention leads to better outcomes and lower costs?

Before being elected to the House, I ran a charity for young people with Down’s syndrome and their families. We saw at first hand the impact that early intervention can make in building the fundamental skills for life that many of us take for granted—walking, talking and participating in society. Children with Down’s syndrome will always need an EHCP, yet the families still have to go through a laborious process.

Many children need a bit of extra help at various points without an EHCP, yet the funding formula also works against them because schools cannot afford to fund the support. As Lily’s mum explained after Lily was denied an EHCP,

“The emotional and financial toll is huge, made worse by constant pushback and denial. There’s endless talk of SEND reform, but what about the children like Lily who need help now? Every delay is another failed day, risking long-term harm.”

I welcome the investments in education and training outlined by the Chancellor in yesterday’s spending review, but it is not just schools’ walls that are crumbling; the systems within the buildings need just as much care, investment and resource. One headteacher said to me:

“Of course teachers want to be paid fairly, but that’s not why so many are leaving the profession. We want better funding for the schools, for the kids.”

I conclude not with the numbers but with a quote from Olivia’s mum, a constituent of mine. Olivia is in her 16th month without appropriate educational provision. Her mum said:

“I am increasingly fearful for her future. How can she be expected to participate fully in society—to reach her potential, to build independence, to thrive—if she is denied even the most basic right to an education?”

The national funding formula must be reassessed and made fit for the future.

14:35

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Over the past decade we have seen a 140% increase in the number of children identified as requiring an education, health and care plan. Today we have nearly 2 million pupils in England who are identified as having special educational needs. Unfortunately, the rise in demand has not been matched by a corresponding increase in funding. As of October last year, the Department for Education projected a cumulative deficit of £4.6 billion in the dedicated schools grant by the end of 2025-26, alongside a £3.4 billion gap by 2027-28 between high-needs costs and current funding levels. Our children have for too long been let down by previous Governments, and we have had 14 years of Conservative austerity. We must urgently re-examine the structure and long-term sustainability of our SEND provision.

In my constituency, the pressure is all too evident. Nearly 9,000 pupils are currently receiving either special educational needs support or have an EHCP—around 18% of the total pupil population. If we look at the data more closely, a stark pattern emerges. There is a clear correlation between the level of special educational needs and the index of multiple deprivation, which means that children in our most deprived areas are significantly more likely to require additional support than their peers living in more affluent neighbourhoods. This is not just a matter of education but a matter of social justice. We must invest in early years intervention and deliver a holistic programme of support.

Wolverhampton West is home to five state-funded special schools: Tettenhall Wood school, Broadmeadow special school, Penn Fields school, Penn Hall school—close to where I live—and Pine Green Academy. I am proud of all of them, as they have dedicated staff and specialists educating over 650 pupils. However, even with the tireless efforts of our dedicated school staff, our state special schools are under strain and operating beyond capacity.

I am proud that this Government have put forward £740 million for 10,000 new SEND places, and spending review documents reveal that the Government will spend £547 million in 2026-27 and £213 million in 2027-28.

[Graham Stuart]

Perhaps my question could go through the hon. Member to the Minister if he does not know the answer. The £740 million is very welcome, but as he says it is frontloaded in one year and then halves the following year, with no indication of where it is going thereafter. Although it may be a welcome short-term intervention, how is it part of a sustainable effort to improve SEN?

[Warinder Juss]

My point is that we have not had sufficient funding to provide our special educational needs children with the support they require. The National Audit Office has warned that without significant change, the current system is financially unsustainable.

The evidence is damning. Since 2019, we have seen no consistent improvement in outcomes for children with SEND. We must, therefore, take bold, decisive steps to reform our SEND system to ensure that every child, irrespective of their needs or background, receives the proper support they rightly deserve. Only then can we say that we have removed the barriers to opportunity.

14:39

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Before I start my speech, I acknowledge the awful tragedy in India. I am aware of my own constituents being directly affected by it, so my thoughts and prayers are with them at this difficult time.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate. I have spoken many times about education in this place, including about my own experience. As a former governor of a school for autistic pupils, I have always been passionate about ensuring that our children and young ones can fulfil their full potential.

Earlier this week, I was lucky enough to visit one of my SEND schools, Breakspeare school in Abbot’s Langley, which is absolutely life-changing not just for the children that it supports and educates, but for the families and the wider network associated with those young, brilliant individuals. I have two other such schools in my constituency, Colnbrook school and Garston Manor school, but I want to focus my comments on Breakspeare.

Breakspeare hopes to move to a different site in Croxley in my constituency. There has been a change of administration at Hertfordshire county council, but I know from the plans of the previous Conservative administration that funding would have been put in place for that new school, because the current one does not have the capacity to meet the demand associated with it, not just in South West Hertfordshire but in the wider area. The school supports predominantly Hertfordshire children, but also those from Buckinghamshire and London. I am grateful that two fellow Hertfordshire MPs from across parties—the hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) and for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins)—are in their places, acknowledging that SEND remains an apolitical but very important issue for all our residents. Today, I urge the county council to do all it can to ensure that that school breaks ground as soon as possible. The current location is not fit for purpose, not just because it is an old building that was not built for SEND provision, but because the significant demand for such provision in Hertfordshire means that it will quickly be out of date and not able to accommodate sufficient student numbers.

I hope that the Minister will provide not just additional support, but—going back to my right hon. Friend’s earlier suggestion—fair funding for those areas that really need it. There is a perception that Hertfordshire is an affluent county, but as someone who has not always been based there, I know it is still a significant concern for my residents that across Hertfordshire, we do not receive the average provision that other counties benefit from. If the Minister was willing and able to speak to Treasury colleagues, I am sure she would get cross-party support in her long-overdue fight to right this wrong. We all want to ensure that children in our communities do better and fulfil their potential.

14:42

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

Decisions on SEND funding in this Parliament directly affect the availability of resources for additional support needs education in Scotland. One of the best experiences of my career was working with the pupils, parents and teachers at the Royal Blind school in Edinburgh when I was at the charity Sight Scotland. There we created a happy and supportive environment to help blind and partially sighted pupils to reach their goals in education, and to gain the vital life skills they need to manage their visual impairments throughout their lives.

Such support should be available in every school—in every mainstream setting—but it simply is not. That is because the presumption of mainstreaming policy in Scotland has not been anything like adequately resourced. In February of this year, Audit Scotland concluded that the Scottish Government and councils must

“fundamentally evaluate how education is funded, staffed and assessed to support all pupils”,

including those with additional support needs,

“to reach their full potential.”

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—we very much welcome his securing the debate—has mentioned the disparities in funding between local authorities. That is an issue in Scotland as well. Repeated poor funding settlements from Ministers for our councils have resulted in a number of local authorities cutting additional support needs budgets again and again. The impact on pupils, parents and local charities has been dramatic and, frankly, intolerable. The number of pupils who need such support has gone up by 32% since 2019, but the number of specialist teachers has increased by just 2%.

Sight Scotland and RNIB Scotland have reported falling numbers of specialist teachers for visual impairment. The National Deaf Children’s Society in Scotland reports a 40% decrease in the number of specialist teachers for the deaf. The brilliant charity Autism Rocks, which is based in Buckhaven in my constituency but supports families throughout Scotland, told me that in one school, the number of support staff has been cut from nine to four. I have seen the huge difference that specialist educational support can make for disabled young people. Specialist teachers give pupils the time and skills they need to have a level playing field in the curriculum. The brilliant Stepping Up programme run by Enable, another charity that I have worked with, helps pupils to manage that difficult transition from school to further education or work.

Because of the actions of this Government, we are finally seeing increases in funding for SEND, and therefore in Scotland for additional support needs, but for two decades SNP Ministers have presided over a crisis in additional support needs provision in Scotland. It is children, families and staff who are suffering as a result—a sorry decline in a Scottish education system of which we were so proud for so long. That is why we urgently need a new direction in Scotland’s schools to ensure that all our children have the support that they need—that is their right—to achieve their full potential.

14:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for setting the scene for us all incredibly well. I am going to give a Presbyterian sermon; for those who do not know what that is, it comes in three parts.

First, some children thrive academically and others practically. Some brains think in one way and others in different ways. We need all of them for a functioning society. We need mechanics as well as doctors; we need plasterers as much as farmers. It takes all sorts, and we need to train children not to fit into a standard box, but to find the box that fits them. That is becoming increasingly difficult for teachers to manage when the range of children is so wide and the pressure is so extensive.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that under the current model, families must first endure an unnecessarily prolonged, complex and emotionally draining diagnostic process before resources finally begin to trickle in. That is a reactive approach, which not only delays the sense of support but undermines the principle of educational equality and inclusion. Does he agree that we must recalibrate the system so that diagnostic services are prioritised, adequately funded and made accessible locally for every family in need?

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is listening, and I am sure she will respond positively to the hon. Lady when the time comes.

SEN is not about writing off a child’s ability, but about ensuring that they find their place in the system in order to achieve their potential.

The second part of my Presbyterian sermon is about the stats for Northern Ireland. I know they are not the Minister’s responsibility, but I will give some figures and talk about a solution that I hope might be helpful. In Northern Ireland, SEN costs £65 million a year, but that figure is about 14% less than what is needed this year. The number of children with special educational needs has risen since 2017 from some 18,000 to some 27,000. In the same period, the number of children enrolled in special schools increased by some 25%. Funding is not meeting need, and we must look at other ways of doing that. The Department of Education in Northern Ireland is looking at units attached to mainstream schools, which provide a best-of-both-worlds approach. I hope that that solution can be of some help. The Department is looking at how well that can enable children to be a part of mainstream and better equipped to move forward.

The units provide additional specialist facilities on a mainstream school site for pupils with an EHC plan. They focus on specific needs such as speech, language, communication or autism. The classes are smaller, and there are more teachers to help each student. The teachers are trained to work with pupils in the designated area of need, the classrooms are adapted to suit pupils’ needs and the pupils spend a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 100% of their teaching and learning time in the unit, joining mainstream peers’ classes when appropriate.

That is one of the solutions that Northern Ireland Education Ministers and education authorities have come up with to try to address the issue when funding is lower. I am conscious of time, so I conclude by saying that perhaps that unit approach is the way forward. I hope that there will be buy-in from staff throughout the United Kingdom. The goal is a UK-wide education system that is fit for all and accessible for all needs. The pressure is great, but so too is the reward in teaching, and we need to find a way to get the greatest reward for our teachers, classroom assistants and all who are involved in school life. That can only come with appropriate Government support, which I know the Minister is always ready and willing to give.

14:49

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

For far too long, families across my county of Staffordshire, and indeed across the country, have been failed by the very system that was meant to support them. The breadth and depth of the crisis in SEND provision is such that this has to be one of the most, if not the most, frequently debated topics since the general election. Since becoming an MP, I have spoken with dozens of parents who are forced to travel long distances, often across county borders, just to get their child the support to which they are legally entitled.

Recently, my team helped a family who had been waiting nine months to get into the school of their choice; others have been waiting for years. I have heard stories of poor communication, of documents being illegible to parents, who feel like outsiders navigating a system designed to exclude them, and of families having to repeat their stories multiple times due to layers and layers of decision making.

[Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)]

My constituency of Ribble Valley sits under Lancashire county council, which recently received a damning Ofsted report for its SEND provision. One parent, Selina Shaw, told me that her son Monty lost two years of education while the council spent more than £146,000 on a school he never attended, as the council did not seem to understand that that school could not meet his needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government and local authorities must listen seriously to the voice of the child and to parents to improve SEND provision and must stop wasting precious resources in the immediate term, as well as providing the long-term financial improvements that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) proposes?

[Josh Newbury]

I am sorry to hear about Monty’s story and I fear that we will hear stories like his from Members across the House in this debate. It is a perfect, but shocking, example of how the system is so broken that we are wasting huge amounts of resources. Money is leaking out of a system that is already inadequately funded. My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. It is awful that we are in such a situation.

Children, particularly those with high needs, are having to wake up before dawn and travel for over an hour, finding themselves exhausted when they reach school. That is not choice; that is a scandal. It is not just the children with the most acute needs who are suffering; many children and young people could thrive with targeted, mid-level support if only it were available. The number of children with education, health and care plans has exploded since 2015, in reflection of a genuine increase in need and greater recognition of mental health issues and neurodivergence. Yet funding has not kept pace, resulting in a deficit of around £33 billion in high needs budgets within local authorities.

I welcome the Government’s acknowledgment that the current SEND system is not fit for purpose and the recent commitment of £740 million to deliver 10,000 new SEND places, particularly in mainstream schools where specialist units can offer much-needed support closer to home. Following yesterday’s spending review, I look forward to the schools White Paper that will come out in the autumn, with details of the Government’s approach to reforming the SEND system.

We must ensure that the money goes where it is truly needed. I share the frustration of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), as Staffordshire is also chronically disadvantaged by the outdated funding formula, with specialist schools in my constituency receiving £8,000 per pupil less not than Camden but than the national average. A fair, needs-based funding system must reflect the actual costs of specialist provision, not assumptions or averages.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

That is partly about the specification of need and the quantification of how we meet it. Government can be helpful in that. I first took an interest in the matter as a county councillor more than 30 years ago and then as a shadow Schools Minister more recently—some 20 years ago. The Government can provide support through guidance. Guidance can get right the specification of need, and some of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has described can be addressed.

[Josh Newbury]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his expertise and long experience to the debate. I am sure that that message has been heard by the Minister on the Front Bench and that she will look into it.

We must recognise that every child’s needs are different. Reforms must deliver on three major fronts: early intervention, so children get support before problems escalate and not after they have already struggled for years; inclusive schools, with proper funding for specialist units and trained staff in every community, not just in a lucky few; and fair access to transport, because no child should be denied education due to postcode lotteries or long, exhausting journeys.

Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to highlight the number of young people with SEND who go into employment later in life. In Staffordshire, only 2.1% of adults with learning difficulties were in paid employment in 2019-20, compared with an average of 5.4% for all English regions.

I am proud to support the Government’s investment for children with additional needs, but families in Cannock Chase now need to see change on the ground: to see parents and children listened to, not dismissed, and to see them respected, not exhausted. We cannot build the fairer, more inclusive country that we all want to see while SEND families are left fighting for support.

14:55

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for bringing forward the debate, and I appreciated his speech. I also appreciate the interest of everybody in the Chamber in this matter. That stems from our experiences on the doorstep, where we have met far too many parents going through hell. We see a mix of determination, frustration, helplessness and betrayal. They look at me and at each hon. Member and say, “What are you going to do about it?” We are not doing enough, and their comments motivated each of us to be here today to do what we can.

Primary schools in my constituency—just dealing with the As, we have Alvescot, Aston and Appleton—do not have the spaces and the provision to provide for their children and the SEND needs that are going through the roof. In the secondary schools, it is the same story. We have no high needs provision in the constituency, which means that lots of children are being taxied God knows where, far too far away, on a daily basis, which is terrible for the kids and terrible for the whole system for obvious reasons, economic and otherwise. We are desperately trying to find routes through that and to find solutions.

In Oxfordshire, we are headed for a £100-million high needs block accumulated deficit this year, which is obviously completely unsustainable. That is just one county, and I am sure that it is repeated across all our counties. To quote the chair of the County Councils Network, we are

“nine months away from a financial cliff edge when these multi-billion deficits are placed onto councils’ budget books, potentially rendering half of England’s county and unitary councils insolvent overnight.”

Oxfordshire county council asks for three things, and I think many of us will agree with them. The statutory override, which will run out in nine months’ time, needs to be extended. Frankly, extending it for one year makes little sense; let us have some perspective and length on this. We need a write-down or a write-off of the high needs block deficits across local authorities. We need to have some borrowing potential for local authorities. That needs to be explored, so that they have flexibility to settle any remaining deficits over an affordable period.

14:55

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak about the deepening funding crisis, and the crisis in general, for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, including the failure of our national curriculum to meet the needs of all learners.

Since the curriculum reforms introduced in 2012, we have seen a return to a rigid, academic model of education—one that might have suited a mid-century grammar school but fails to deliver for a modern comprehensive system. The curriculum is simply inaccessible for at least a third of our pupils, both those with SEND and many others who thrive with practical, creative or vocational learning. Too many children are being told, implicitly or explicitly, that their job is to, “Just get a pass and forget about it.” That is not a curriculum that inspires or includes, it is not a curriculum that recognises or nurtures diverse talents, and it is certainly not a curriculum fit for the 21st century. It also ignores the cost of adequately educating children with special educational needs. This narrow focus does more than limit opportunity; it damages self-esteem, confidence and emotional wellbeing. It restricts the gifts and potential of our young people, particularly those who already face the greatest barriers.

Critically, schools have lost the flexibility they once had to tailor education to the needs of their pupils. They are now judged on a narrow set of outcomes, forcing a one-size-fits-all model on to a hugely diverse student body—again, a cut-price way to deliver our education system. That has consequences. We can draw a direct line from the rigidity of the curriculum to the crisis in school attendance, and from there to the rise in NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—who are vulnerable to exploitation or even to entering the youth justice system as they are exploited by organised crime. Too many young people with SEND are being failed by a system that offers them no real route to thrive, and when school stops being a protective factor, the risks grow.

That situation is being made worse by how SEND funding is distributed. Local authorities are under incredible pressure, with funding that simply does not reflect the growing complexity and volume of need. We see huge disparities between areas, and often between schools within the same local authority, where children miss out on vital support not because their needs are different, but because of postcode lotteries in funding.

Fair and adequate funding is a matter of educational justice. If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot continue to under-resource the very system meant to deliver it. We urgently need to reimagine our education system not as a funnel toward academic exams alone, but as a foundation for every child’s success in every form it might take. I hope the Minister will listen to the parents, carers, teachers and young people themselves calling for change.

14:59

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

SEND provision in our schools is in a state of deep and growing crisis. In my area, West Sussex county council is already struggling with a £130 million SEND deficit this year—a figure likely to rise to £224 million by next year. That huge figure is one of the worst in the country, but what is truly concerning is that so much overspend has not even bought us a satisfactory service. Complaints from parents and schools have filled my postbag ever since the election.

Only half of EHCPs nationally are issued within the legal 20-week timeframe. In West Sussex it is even worse: just 12% now meet the deadline—and that is after a big push to get the waiting list down. It is hard to believe that slow processing is not a tactic. An EHCP gives parents the right to access educational support, but that support does not actually exist, so the local authority’s solution is to create deliberate bottlenecks in the system so that many families will never get all the way through. That is particularly unfair at the nursery level, because educational psychologist assessments can take so long that the child is all the way through school before they get one.

More and more families are forced to go to appeal—tribunal appeals are up 53% in one year—but the fact that councils lose almost all those cases tells us that things should never have got that far in the first place. In effect, that discriminates heavily against parents who, for whatever reason, are less able to fight their case all the way through the system.

I have met many parents with SEN children and the emotional cost is enormous. Sometimes I feel like I myself need counselling afterwards. Parents have to watch their children drift away from mainstream schooling when early intervention might have saved them. Families are breaking up under the strain. One couple told me that a third of marriages do not survive the experience.

Of course, the pressure on staff is no less severe. Our teachers—particularly SENCOs—are exhausted, unsupported and leaving the profession. One Horsham SENCO told me:

“We are seasoned professionals, but we are at breaking point.”

Mainstream schools face manifest injustices. One school told me about a child who was refused by a specialist school because their needs were said to be too great. What happened? The child was allocated to an ordinary mainstream primary without any specialist support.

I realise that the demands on the Government’s budget are endless, but I hope that the current review will lead to swift action. Any further delay means we risk losing all the educational progress that teachers have worked so hard to deliver over the past 10 years.

15:02

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing the debate.

It is clear that the special educational needs and disabilities system is overstretched, underfunded and increasingly out of step with the reality faced by children, parents and schools. I will share with colleagues two local examples from Bolton West that illustrate the strife that the current system has caused parents.

One mother, Jo, wrote to me after I visited her children’s school in Lostock. Her children are both bright, engaged, full of potential and autistic, but they are all too often excluded from the very activities designed to inspire them. When the school organised a high-profile enrichment trip to London, her eldest was not chosen. It is not the fault of the school, which is operating under challenging financial constraints; rather, it is a symptom of a system that fails to see autistic children as leaders or participants in national life. After all, as Jo reminded me, representation is not just about being present, but about being expected.

Another mother, Victoria, wrote to me distraught about the possibility that education, health and care plans may soon be restricted to children in specialist settings. Her 10-year-old son, who has complex needs, is in mainstream education. He cannot learn without tailored support. His EHCP is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. Without it, he would not be in school; without it, he would not be learning.

In Bolton alone, more than 9,000 young people have identified SEND needs, and over 20% of them rely on EHCPs, so I welcome the £1 billion increase to SEND and alternative provision that was announced for 2025-26 in the autumn statement last year. I commend the Chancellor for her announcement in yesterday’s spending review of another £547 million in 2026-27 and £213 million in 2027-28 to reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, to make it more inclusive and to improve outcomes ahead of publishing a schools White Paper in the autumn.

However, can the Minister reassure my constituents and me that, whatever happens with EHCPs, parents and teachers will be closely consulted to ensure the best outcomes are secured for children across my constituency and up and down the country? I am very concerned about the potential knock-on effect of any reforms for teaching assistants. From visiting schools, I know how vital their role is in ensuring children can maximise the time they have to learn in classrooms, whether it be at Ladybridge primary, the Gates in Westhoughton or Beaumont Primary, to name but a few.

I know from speaking to a local head just this morning that the current situation simply cannot go on. She told me that headteachers were having to go cap in hand outside the school to seek alternative funding and that she has never found it so tough in seven years of being a head. We owe it to all our children to give them the ability to realise their ambitions, so I hope the Minister can address my concerns and those of my constituents.

12:49

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this important debate. Given the limited time that has been allocated, I will speak about the state of SEND in my area and then suggest how the Government can address some of these challenges.

The Dewsbury and Batley constituency sits in the authority of Kirklees, which ranks very low in terms of funding per child in the high-needs block of the dedicated schools grant. According to recent reports, Kirklees is the second worst funded council for high-needs funding per capita. Kirklees has nearly 9,600 disabled children and young people between the ages of nought and 24. Since 2016, there has been a real-terms spending cut of £717,000 on services for disabled children in Kirklees. Given the lack of funding, it is not surprising that in June 2022 a joint SEND inspection by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission reported two priority areas of action, which, as far as I am aware, are still unresolved. Without the necessary funding, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the council to address these challenges.

In Kirklees, one in eight EHCPs were processed within the 20-week legal timescale, compared with the national average of 50%, making it one of the worst rates nationally. Kirklees is part of the Department for Education’s safety valve programme, which helps local authorities with their SEND deficits, but that may pressure councils to limit EHCPs, adding barriers for families seeking essential support for their children.

I completely agree that the Government’s plans for major SEND reforms are necessary and overdue. However, current rumours and media leaks have alarmed many families. The Disabled Children’s Partnership, which represents 130-plus charities, royal colleges and parent groups and supports early intervention, has warned that reforms must not disrupt current placements or support arrangements; they must not remove EHCPs for children with complex or unmet needs; they must not abolish the SEND tribunal, which is a vital legal safeguard; they must not remove support after the age of 18 before young people are ready; and they must not redefine SEND in ways that narrow eligibility.

12:49

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for bringing this important issue to the Chamber for a full and thorough discussion.

I want to highlight a few issues in Suffolk Coastal. I recently had quite a large conversation with many parents in my constituency. Nearly 100 parents filled in my survey and told me the extent of the issues they are facing as a consequence of battling with special educational needs provision. Some 60% of those who filled in the survey told me that they have had to withhold their children from school for up to a year because their children could not access education in a setting that was right for them. Nearly a quarter of those children have been off school for over a year.

It will not surprise anyone in this Chamber or any parents listening to the debate that many families are struggling with the mental health consequences of this crisis. One in two parents told me that they are battling with mental health issues as a consequence of their battles with SEND provision. In many conversations that I have had across my constituency with schools, parents and young students, we have also explored some of the recommendations that could be brought forward, and I have spoken at length about that in the past. We have a dual badge in Suffolk: we are a member of f40 and also an area that is being let down regarding SEND. Our county council is effectively in special measures.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is the truth that dare not speak its name. It is often the most disadvantaged or poorly educated parents who struggle to navigate a complex system. Middle-class parents are at an advantage—let us face facts—but that is never really recognised, and it needs to be. Those people need support and guidance to navigate the system, and to get the education that their children rightly deserve.

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, which is why I and so many Members are passionate about this issue. Those who cannot articulate or fight for themselves need people to stand up and fight for them.

In many discussions I have had, I have worked with my constituents and with schools to come up with six key recommendations that we think will be innovative. We know there is a funding issue, and I welcome the Government’s investment and commitment to that. However, we need to relook at how we deliver special educational needs. Education, care and health plans are just one part of the problem, but fixing those will not fix the situation that parents are facing.

A school in Saxmundham closed down last summer, because of the declining population in that area, two years after more than £1 million was spent on its SEND unit. It is a great facility whose footprint could facilitate primary and secondary education. I have been urging the Government to look at that— I have written to the Minister, and I will continue to urge the Government to look at that provision and take it forward.

We need a national conversation about SEND and about funding. I welcome Members from across the House talking about the need to bring the voices of parents and young students to that national conversation. We must hear from them why it is failing, and how adversarial the system has become.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Statistics published today by the Government show that there are more than 482,000 children with ECHPs but 1.284 million children without ECHPs who require SEND support. Although the £750 million is welcome, does the hon. Member agree that it is a drop in the ocean and that the Government need to invest more?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

Perhaps the hon. Member will agree with what I am about to say, which is that, yes, funding is part of the issue, but we need to look at the entire system to solve it at the scale that is needed.

In rural areas—the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness spoke about this at the beginning of the debate—the issues are different to those in urban areas. There are declining populations in many of my primary schools. One primary school has just 15 students and spare classrooms, because the population does not match the capacity. We have capacity within those schools. I have put forward a recommendation, which has been supported in principle by my county council, that where we have declining populations in rural areas, we could operate with a special educational needs unit alongside mainstream provision, acting separately but within the same infrastructure. That SEND unit could bid for separate funding, and have a separate, wider catchment area than the primary school.

What is incredibly exciting about that idea is that the provision does not need to stop in year 6. We know that small, cute primary schools with tiny populations have a huge challenge with students moving from year 6 into huge class sizes in secondary school in year 7. If we were to go ahead with the proposal, there is no reason why the SEND unit in a primary school could not hold students in years 7 and 8, enabling a much more gradual transition to a secondary school setting. That is something I have been pushing passionately. I have written a report about it, which I published in my constituency. I am having loads of conversations with my schools, and I will continue to have a conversation with the Government. I welcome everyone’s contributions today.

15:13

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak on a matter so close to the hearts of parents, carers, teachers and pupils in Bognor Regis, Littlehampton and across West Sussex: the urgent need for equitable and sustainable funding for special educational needs and disabilities.

Since 2015, the number of EHCPs in West Sussex has risen dramatically, from 3,362 to 7,684 in 2024, an increase of 128%. That surge mirrors an England-wide trend, where the number of EHCPs has grown by over 70% since 2018. That equates to about 180,000 additional high-needs pupils. Local mainstream schools, like Bishop Tufnell and Edward Bryant, report being stretched to capacity. They rely on fundraising from charities merely to maintain basic SEN provision, while increasing staff shortages and rising national insurance costs exacerbate burnout. Nationally, high-needs spending has risen to roughly £11 billion, but with pupil numbers growing faster than funding, per pupil support has actually fallen by a third in real terms.

The Government have recognised that pressure. A capital investment of £740 million aims to support the creation of 10,000 additional SEND places, including in specialist units in mainstream schools, and a further £1 billion is being allocated to support 44,500 mainstream school placements by 2028 under the high-needs national funding formula. However, even with that funding, experts warn of a ticking time bomb, as councils, including West Sussex, face soaring deficits that could reach £5 billion by 2026. Until 2018-19, the council was in a surplus, but since then, the exponential rise in need has put immense pressure on the system.

I have asked the Leader of the House to facilitate a debate on a sustainable model for SEND funding that ensures that local authorities like West Sussex receive adequate per-head resources; that delivers timely funding adjustments as EHCP numbers grow; and that supports retention of specialist staff and inclusive practices in mainstream settings. I urge the House to commit to sustainable and future-proofed funding.

15:16

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

As many right hon. and hon. Members have outlined, there is no doubt that there is a crisis in our SEND system in this country—a crisis that we inherited from the previous Government. However, funding is still too low to keep pace with the rate at which children are being diagnosed with SEND, and many families and teachers are struggling to get the help that children desperately need and deserve. Unfortunately, families in my constituency of South Dorset experience the same. According to figures set out earlier this year, 18% of pupils in South Dorset receive SEND support, roughly 5% more than the national average. That is why I want to increase the number of SEND places in special school settings.

We have three state-funded special schools locally, Harbour school, Westfield college and Wyvern academy, whose staff do a truly brilliant job delivering specialised and individualised support for every child. However, following conversations with mums and dads at the school gate and teachers in the classroom, I am all too aware that, put simply, there are more SEND pupils across South Dorset, primarily based in mainstream schools, than there are special SEND places in special school settings.

[Warinder Juss]

In 2023, the Department for Education said that demand for special school places nationally outstripped available places by at least 4,000, so does my hon. Friend agree that we need more special school places?

[Lloyd Hatton]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and we really feel that in South Dorset. There are simply not the places needed to support every child with SEND. We urgently need the Government to move further, faster, to ensure that every child with SEND gets the education, and the school setting, that they deserve. I once again ask Ministers at the Department for Education to get the SEND school at the Osprey Quay site on Portland open—we waited for years for that to happen under the previous Government—and to finally rebuild the buildings at Dorset Studio school. If we can get those two projects over the line, we can really start to deal with the crisis in South Dorset.

Funding for a new SEND school was promised for so many years; that is what is most frustrating for parents in my constituency, particularly those living on Portland. In 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, they were promised a solution that did not come, and once again we are waiting. Parents on Portland need that school on the Osprey Quay site opened as soon as possible.

Every child, no matter their educational needs, should have the opportunity to do their best, but they can do that only in the right school, with the right support. I know that this Labour Government recognise that reality, which is why I look forward to hearing from the Department for Education on the future of those two schools in my constituency, and to hearing a little more from the Minister at the end of this debate.

15:19

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Schools in my constituency are among the lowest-funded in the country, and there is a lack of resource for early intervention work before children get to the point of needing SEND support or an EHCP, which means that more children will need a higher level of intervention later. It is a vicious circle. The lack of money to act early means that more money must be transferred from the schools block to the high-needs block, reducing still further the funding for early intervention.

South Gloucestershire is one of the local authorities that entered into a safety-valve agreement with the previous Government. It faces a cliff edge when that agreement ends next April, and as yet there is no certainty about what comes next. A great deal of work has been done by the council and schools working in SEND clusters, but the deficit has continued to increase. The agreement was signed pre-covid—we all know about the impact that the pandemic had on demand for additional support—and as a result the targets in the agreement are completely unachievable. Safety-valve agreements have not worked. Will the Government write off those historical deficits and find a new fairer funding formula?

I support the Government’s focus on inclusion, early intervention and preventive support to make that possible for more children. However, we need to recognise that there are children and young people already in the system who did not get that support, and schools need the funding to support them now. One of the reasons for the historical deficit in south Gloucestershire is the lack of specialist places locally, which has resulted in high numbers of expensive out-of-area placements. Those are bad for children, who would be better off being educated in their local community, so that they did not face excessive travel or need a residential place, and they are bad for the school budget.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about early intervention. The current funding models respond only to high-level need and EHCPs, which leads to an over-reliance on costly EHCPs and new special school places. Does she agree that we should look to allocate a ringfenced proportion of the high-needs funding to early intervention in mainstream schools?

[Claire Young]

That is one approach, but we need to ensure that it does not take away from the high-needs approach. The point is that we have to fund both early intervention and the high-level needs that have resulted from the lack of early intervention.

The previous Government declined to fund an additional 200 special school placements when they signed the safety-valve agreement. When I met the Minister for School Standards, she did so too, saying that the focus is on providing places in the mainstream. Increased inclusion is a sound ongoing policy, but pupils cannot make the switch overnight. We need a fairer distribution of capital funding as well as revenue funding.

Another issue with SEND funding is the notional £6,000. To give one example, a headteacher locally told me that more than 60% of their allocation goes on the high number of children with EHCPs they have on roll, leaving less than 40% to support all the other children on the record of need. School funding does not recognise that there can be great disparities between communities and schools, even in the same local authority area. Some acquire a reputation for being good at supporting those with additional needs and suffer financial consequences, and some communities in an authority have greater need than others. The formula for distributing SEND funding and more general schools funding does not reflect that, and it means that schools in different parts of the country with similar cohorts are treated very differently.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

This is clearly a national crisis. Cornwall ranks 144th out of 151 local authorities for per-pupil SEND funding, and children with SEND needs in Cornwall get almost half the funding of those in Middlesbrough. Does my hon. Friend agree that this gross funding unfairness should be urgently addressed?

[Claire Young]

Absolutely. South Gloucestershire is in an even worse position, and I am sure all the authorities in the f40 group would agree.

Yesterday, I raised with the Prime Minister one of the impacts that lack of support for SEND has on families. He did not take up my request for a meeting, but I hope he will consider meeting me to discuss this aspect of the issue, and meeting charities that represent parents who are in this situation. Of course, the lack of support for children with special educational needs has many other impacts; I simply do not have time to go into all of them today.

We need overall SEND funding to reflect the level of need. We need more funding during the transition to greater inclusion, to reflect the fact that we will be supporting people with a high level of need, as well as funding early intervention. We need a national body for SEND to end the postcode lottery, and to fund the very high-need cases that cost over £25,000 a year, and schools need funding to be distributed in a way that reflects their needs, not some overall and potentially flawed perception by their local authority.

15:25

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. This is an issue close to my heart. I used to be a school governor as well as a college governor, and I remember setting up—along with other teachers and professionals—a specific learning unit, as well as a general learning difficulty unit. Of course, having been a constituency MP for the past 15 years, this is an issue that I have dealt with many a time, and when I have been trying to assist families, I have noticed that they feel utterly exhausted, not only by their caring responsibility, but by a system that seems to place obstacles in their way.

My council, Bolton, has made real progress. Its “Belonging in Bolton” strategy is helping to create more local SEND places, and it was rightly praised in its most recent Ofsted and Care Quality Commission inspection. In the area covered by Salford city council, parts of which now come into my constituency—it now covers Walkden—the council has also been working really hard to improve provision for children with SEND, but of course, all these councils have limited resources. In Bolton alone, over 9,000 children have a SEND issue, an increase of 27% since 2015. One headteacher in my constituency recently told me that their school spends £333,000 a year on teaching assistants to support children with special needs, but it receives only £155,000 in education, health and care plan funding. That leaves a gap of £178,000 every single year, around 7% of the school’s total budget, which they have to find somewhere. That is before we factor in the costs of behaviour support, speech and language therapy, or educational psychologists.

We need a proper plan that would increase the outdated £6,000 top-up threshold; invest in local authority teams to ensure that EHC plans are issued on time, giving families the certainty they need; and target capital funding at where demand is greatest, including in Bolton South and Walkden, to make sure that children can get support closer to home. Children in Bolton South and Walkden need support, and that must not be like winning a lottery.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

15:28

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I would like to start with the words of Berkhamsted student Hermione:

“I believe, without a doubt, that the school system needs to change. But more than anything, it needs to change for SEN students—because right now, it is failing them…The system broke me down completely. Instead of supporting me, the system left me feeling isolated and overwhelmed.”

Last week, I met Hermione at Egerton-Rothesay school in Berkhamsted. She has complex needs, and has found solace in her new school after years of struggling. That is why, for her English oral exam, she was compelled to write a piece called “The school system needs to change: especially for SEN students”. She happened to send it to her headmaster on the day I visited. It is an eloquent piece about her experience, and I wish I had time to share it in its entirety. She concludes by saying:

“I know I’m lucky to have the support I do, but it’s still not enough. The system needs to change—not just for me, but for all the students still being let down, and for the future of education itself.”

She calls for improved teacher training, for a more flexible curriculum and assessments, for schools to listen to SEND students and for properly funded and staffed support. I would like to tell Hermione that Parliament is listening, and this debate will dive into why that proper funding is so vital and how it can be improved.

The Government must heed the call of parents and children to tackle this issue head on. The Public Accounts Committee reported in January that despite the 58% increase in the Department for Education’s high needs funding over the past decade, it has not kept pace with demand. The current funding model, which sees top-up funding for students requiring more than £6,000 a year of additional SEND support, has not been updated, even given the changes in real-term value. That is crippling local schools and authorities, with 38 unitary and county authorities having racked up debts exceeding £2 billion this year alone. That has resulted in high-needs spending being consistently higher than available funding by between £200 million and £800 million a year between 2018 and 2022.

Hertfordshire was given the worst rating for SEND provision under the previous Conservative Administration. The funding formula under the Conservatives meant that children in Hertfordshire have been burdened with the third-lowest per capita funding for high needs funding and far less than just next door in Buckinghamshire. A three-year-old in Hertfordshire with SEND needs would have to finish all their formal education before they would get equal funding to a similar child in Buckinghamshire. The new Government must stop this postcode lottery, as eloquently put forward by the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and ensure that those previously left behind get the support they need.

Kyle’s family in Markyate told me that the system treated them not as kids with hopes and dreams, but as just another name on a piece of paper. Jess in Tring made the difficult decision to remove their six-year-old from school to home-educate and told me that seeing their five-year-old struggling was “heartbreaking”. Those are not isolated cases; they reflect the story across constituencies up and down the country, the real consequences of underfunding and the postcode lottery of unfair distribution.

The Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to fix this broken system. We call on the Government: to establish a national SEND body to end this postcode lottery and to fully fund costs above £25,000 per annum, ensuring that children with complex needs receive the tailored support they require; to increase funding for local authorities to reduce the financial burden on schools after the Conservatives left local councils underfunded; to extend the profit cap from children’s social care to SEND; to provide cash towards the cost of EHCPs to tackle the disincentives creating this adversarial system; and, to reform that broken national funding formula.

This crisis cannot go on. Every child, no matter their needs, deserves the opportunity to succeed with the right support in place. The Government must urgently clarify their reform plans. SEND families deserve certainty, not to be drip-fed information about their children’s future. As Hermione says:

“To anyone who thinks, ‘The system works fine as it is’—fine for who? If it doesn’t work for all, then it doesn’t truly work.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

15:33

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow such excellent contributions from Members from all parts of the House in this important debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this vital debate. I pay tribute to the parents, the carers, the schools and all those who have battled tirelessly to secure funding for SEND students.

I was one of those SEND students who benefited from my parents tirelessly campaigning for me to have the disability support I needed in school. It has only taken me this long to finally say thank you. Such support plays a vital role in children’s long-term success. Members from all parts of the House have raised this issue today because they can see the merits in fighting for children’s chances, particularly in primary school, to increase their success overall.

We know that finding the right provision can be difficult and bureaucratic for children with SEND and their families. Securing the right assessment of a child’s needs, getting their education, health and care plan, and finding the right provision takes huge effort and far too long. Many parents who have come to me have been absolutely choked and suffocated by the system. Too often, children with SEND face a postcode lottery, with suitable provision too far from their home or, in the worst cases, no suitable provision at all.

According to the 2024 data, we now have 1.67 million children who have been identified as having SEND— 18.4% of all school pupils. We know that the number has grown significantly over the last few years, which is why the Conservatives opened 108 new specialist schools, committed to a further 92 and delivered over 60,000 new special needs school places. The growth in children with SEND is why getting the distribution of funding correct really does matter. We know that not enough of the funding is reaching schools and the children who need it the most. We know that as the number of children with SEND has increased, the deficit from the high-needs block has become financially unsustainable, as many Members have alluded to today. That is why we must confront the challenges facing local government when the statutory override ends in March 2026, and we would like to hear what assurances the Minister can give on how councils can address the deficit.

[Sir John Hayes]

As I expected, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling case. Will she also ask the Minister to address the issue of special needs not being static? Many needs are dynamic—children change when their needs change—and that dynamism needs to be built into the system so that flexible funding can follow need.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that excellent point. Many Members have raised this issue, and perhaps we can have another debate in Government time on how SEND funding can follow the student, rather than just having it allocated. The needs of a SEND student will change over time, which is why parents often change educational providers. Children may go into independent school settings and then come back to state settings, and parents are constantly battling the system. It is worth looking at whether we can have a model in which the funding follows the student.

Many parents have come to me, and I am sure to other Members, to ask for VAT not to be charged on independent school fees, because over 100,000 pupils with SEND who were being supported in that educational setting now have to go back into the state sector, which cannot cope with rising costs and the number of students entering the system. I ask the Government to urgently look at that and to U-turn on the policy of charging VAT on school fees, because SEND children are falling through the cracks as a result.

For SEND students in primary school, it is very important that they have educational support through teachers. Primary school teachers are some of the most important teachers. They changed my life and helped me cope with my disability, and I would not be here today if I had not had them. The Government claimed that they would recruit 6,500 more teachers, but we have now heard that they will not do so. The truth is that there are now 400 fewer teachers than there were a year ago. Promises have been made, but this promise seems to have been broken.

However, it is even worse than that. When it comes to SEND, primary schools play a vital role, but this Government have had to quietly drop primary school teachers from their promise to recruit 6,500 teachers, and I honestly want to know why that is. Primary schools are where children with hidden SEND will first present. If there is early intervention, the journey to provide them with the right support is much easier. Having that support yields high levels of return, but if it is not put in place in time, we see high levels of exclusion and ultimately see children disengage from education and learning.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the problem begins even earlier? Nurseries receive no dedicated SEND funding, which means that essential early intervention is provided by schools and the funding is overstretched. That is neither sustainable nor fair for the children or for the schools trying to support them.

[Joy Morrissey]

The hon. Member makes a wonderful point about the fact that early intervention is underfunded, but such funding actually reaps huge benefits for students. I should declare that I worked at the Centre for Social Justice, where we looked at early intervention as one of the most important ways of turning around the lives of children. Especially for children with special educational needs, early diagnosis and early intervention can make all the difference in their not falling behind when they enter main education. It is rare that I support additional funding, but I do for early intervention because it is life-changing. The years during which we can change a child’s life are those from four to seven. It is such a small window during which we can erase trauma and help with any disability, but that will help them for the rest of their lives, so early intervention makes all the difference for such children in the long term.

I ask the Government to listen: to listen to the children, families and schools telling them that SEND funding is not making it to the children who need it; to listen to the local authorities that need clarity urgently on the future of high-needs blocks and the statutory override; to listen to the parents of children at independent schools who are being ripped from settings that work for them because of an Education Secretary who will not listen to the evidence that those schools are the right place for those students at this time; and to listen to the primary schools that are now short of teachers, but are trying to provide SEND support for these children at the most vital stage of their education. It is time for the Government to listen and to make the changes our children with SEND so desperately need.

15:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate on this important subject. I know he has a strong interest in special educational needs and disability, and I commend him for his 20 years of advocating for change. He spoke widely about many areas, but especially about distribution. I also thank the many Members across this Chamber for their passionate and sincere speeches, which all advocated for their constituents and the children they care about.

Among the many Members who have spoken, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) talked about the difficulties for parents navigating SEND. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about the challenges involving EHCPs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) gave some case studies, and like other Members mentioned these precious children and their experiences, which were all very vital and pertinent to this debate. I thank them for those case studies about Grace, Olivia, Hermione and others, which I really appreciate and acknowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) spoke about the Government investing in early years, and that is absolutely what we are doing.

I will seek to address as many as possible of the issues and challenges that have been raised and brought to my attention, but I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) for his strong advocacy for SEN provision in his area, which has been noted. However, I will push back against the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who raised many issues to be addressed. I gently say to her that, given the past 14 years, we did not need to be in this position with SEND—we did not need to be here—and this Government have been left to fix the foundations. We do have a plan for change, and I will mention as many of the areas as I can.

The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and giving every child the best start in life. That means ensuring that all children and young people receive the right support to succeed in their education and to lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I would like to make some progress before I begin to give way.

Members from across the House will be aware of the challenges facing the SEND system—a system that is difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate, and where outcomes for children are often poor. That has been mentioned by many Members. The Education Committee has undertaken its own inquiry aimed at solving the SEND crisis, which underscores the significant challenges we face. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. We want all children to receive the right support to succeed in their education, and to lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives. The hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) quoted Hermione, who said that SEND needs to work for all, and I just wanted to acknowledge that.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She will be aware that the title of this debate, despite what it says on the screen, is “Distribution of SEND Funding”. I hope, therefore, that she will focus primarily on that particular technical point. The distribution of SEND funding across the country is, according to f40 and campaigners across the House, unfair, broken and needs to change. Is that the Government’s view and the Minister’s view? That is the first answer, and then we can turn to how it can best be fixed. The most important thing is to recognise whether it is broken or not. I feel it is unfair and broken, and I would like to hear the Minister say so, if she agrees.

[Janet Daby]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but he does need to allow me time to proceed. It would be wrong of me not to also respond to other Members from across the Chamber who have mentioned concerns with regard to the reason we are here.

Members across the House will be aware of the challenges facing the SEND system. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. As I said, we want all children to receive the right support. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings. We know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating, and that it supports all children and young people to achieve their goals alongside their peers.

These are complex issues that need a considered approach to deliver sustainable change, and we have already begun that work. We launched new training resources to support early years educators to meet emerging needs, and announced 1,000 further funded training places for early years special educational needs co-ordinators in the 2025-26 financial year, which will be targeted at settings in the most disadvantaged areas. We have extended the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools programme to support an additional 1,200 mainstream primary schools to better meet the needs of neurodiverse children in the financial year 2025-26. That investment builds on the success of the programme, which was delivered to over 1,650 primary schools last year. We have already established an expert advisory group for inclusion to improve the mainstream educational outcomes and experiences of those with SEND.

All that work forms part of the Government’s opportunity mission, which will break down the unfair link between background and opportunity. We will continue to work with the sector as essential and valued partners to deliver our shared mission and to respect parents’ trust. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) mentioned, parents need to be respected, not exhausted.

The Department is providing an increase of £1 billion for the high needs budget in England in the 2025-26 financial year. Total high needs funding for children and young people with complex SEND is over £12 billion for the year 2025-26. Returning to the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, of that total, East Riding of Yorkshire council is being allocated over £42 million through the high needs funding block of the dedicated schools grant—an increase of £3.5 million on 2024-25. The high needs block is calculated using the high needs national funding formula. The NFF allocation is a 9.1% increase per head for the two to 18-year-old population on the equivalent 2024-25 NFF allocation.

I will turn to the many issues raised by other Members. We know that families face issues with education, health and care plans, and that even after fighting to secure the entitlement, support is not always delivered quickly enough. EHC plans should be issued within 20 weeks and are quality assured for a combination of statutory requirements, local authority frameworks and best practice guidelines, but the latest publication data showed that just half of new EHC plans were issued within the time limit in 2023. Where a local authority does not meet its duty on timeliness and quality of plans, we can take action that prioritises children’s needs and supports local areas to bring about rapid improvement.

This Government believe that a complex legal process should not be necessary to access good, early support for children and young people, which is why we need to focus on addressing the overall systemic issues to make SEND support easier to access. We are continuing to develop the ways in which we protect support for the children who will always need specialist placements and make accessing that support less bureaucratic and adversarial.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

Does the Minister acknowledge that early support must be given to children when they are at nursery? If we identify those needs at that point, we could save money in the long run.

[Janet Daby]

The Government are very much committed to early intervention and prevention work.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

It was strongly suggested the other day that the Government were going to look at changing EHCPs and possibly even scrapping them completely. Can the Minister give some reassurance to the House, and to constituents who may be watching this debate, that EHCPs will remain extant and will be worked on?

[Janet Daby]

As far as I am aware, EHC plans will continue.

We know that children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life chances. As I have already said, we believe in early intervention and recognise the importance of high-quality early years education and care, which can lead to better outcomes for children. Having access to a formal childcare setting allows children’s needs to be identified at the earliest opportunity, so that the appropriate support and intervention can be put in place to allow children with SEND to thrive.

Arrangements are in place to support children with SEND to access Government funding in early education, including funding for disability access and special educational needs inclusion and the high needs NFF allocations to support local authorities. We are reviewing early years SEND funding arrangements to assess how suitable the current arrangements are for supporting the needs of children with SEND.

The additional funding for schools of more than £4 billion a year over the next three years announced in the spending review will provide an above real-terms per-pupil increase in the core schools budget, taking per-pupil funding to its highest ever level and enabling us to transform the SEND system. We will improve support for children, stop parents having to fight for support and protect the support that is currently in place. Details of the Government’s intended approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn. The Government will also set out further details on supporting local authorities as we transition to a reformed system as part of the upcoming local authority funding reform consultation.

[Sir John Hayes]

The point was made earlier about rural areas. My county of Lincolnshire has a sparsely distributed population, which makes travel and access difficult for parents of children with special needs. Will the Minister address that in the new funding formula to ensure that rural areas do not lose out?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I have already said, the Government intend to set out our SEND reforms in the schools White Paper in the autumn. I will make sure that a further response is also provided to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

The investment in the spending review is a critical step forward in our mission to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive, and to support teachers and leaders to deliver high and rising standards across every school for every pupil.

On travel, which has been raised by many Members across the Chamber, local authorities must arrange free travel for children of compulsory school age who attend their nearest school and cannot walk there because of the distance, their SEND or a mobility problem, or because the route is not safe. There are additional rights to free travel for low-income households to help them exercise school choice.

Where a child has an EHCP, the school named in the plan will usually be considered their nearest to home for school travel purposes. We know how challenging home-to-school travel is for local authorities at the moment. That is due in large part to the pressures in the SEND system itself.

Central Government funding for home-to-school travel is provided through the local government finance settlement, administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The final settlement for 2025-26 makes available over £69 billion for local government, which is a 6.8% cash-terms increase in councils’ core spending power for 2024-25.

We have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, so that more children can attend a local school with their peers. This will mean that fewer children will need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs, which will reduce pressure on home-to-school travel over time, meaning that we will be better able to meet the needs of those who still need to rely on it.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you want me to draw to a close. I reiterate that the Government are urgently looking at reforming the SEND system, so that it better serves children and young people and their families. We have noted all the contributions that have been made this afternoon. This will take time, but we are working at pace and will be setting out our plans to do that in the White Paper in the autumn. Members can rest assured that our approach is rooted in partnership, and that all our work will be guided by what children, their families, experts, leaders and frontline professionals tell us. We can transform the outcomes of young people with SEND only if we listen and work together on solutions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Graham Stuart to wind up.

15:57

[Graham Stuart]

I thank all colleagues for coming to the Chamber on this Thursday afternoon, because this issue is just so important. We have heard really interesting and reflective speeches from right across the House, as Members have sought to champion the children who probably most need help in our society, so it is right that we should be here.

I thank the Minister for her response. I was slightly disappointed, because the title of this debate is “Distribution of SEND Funding”, and it is important to ask whether the distribution is right. Do the Government think that it is, or that it is not? I do not think that the system is defensible as it is, and it would be good to hear that said. Once one has recognised that the system is broken and unfair, the next question is: how shall we fix it? We did not get an answer to that, because we did not get an answer to the first question.

The Minister’s response morphed into what we talk about generally, which is SEN overall, what the Government are doing, the £1 billion extra and all the other things, many of which are welcome, but the question underneath that is whether the distribution is right. If it is not, are we going to do something about it, while making these other changes? We did not get an answer to that.

My appeal to the Minister—I think colleagues across the House will welcome this; I might even get a nod from some on the Government Benches—is to make sure that, in the White Paper, there is an opportunity to make the distribution fairer, if not immediately, then at least over time. We must recognise the problem and look to level up over time. That is not to penalise those who might be technically overfunded today, but to make sure that every child has a fairer and better chance of getting whatever we can best provide from the system. That is an important element of the overall discussion about SEND.

We will doubtless hear more about this topic. The Minister did not seem absolutely clear whether EHCPs were here to stay. Resisting my own strictures on sticking to the subject of distribution, I will use the few seconds that I have left to talk about the EHCP system. When a child gets an EHCP, they get a better outcome. Perhaps that is driving parents to push their children to get one, and that may be contributing to the financial unsustainability of the system that we have today. It would be enormously controversial to look to remove it. At the moment we have a system that from 2019 to 2024 was increased by 60%. The Government are putting in another £1 billion, and another £760 million was announced yesterday, and that is welcome, but if we do not find a way of stabilising the system, we will still have those who are sharp-elbowed getting something for their kids and those who are not losing out. That is not a system that anyone across the House should be satisfied with.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the distribution of SEND funding.