SEND Funding
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(4 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
The Department’s home-to-school travel policy aims to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education due to a lack of transport. I am keen to understand how well home-to-school transport is supporting children to access educational opportunity. I am working closely with officials on that, and I will bear my hon. Friend’s comments and concerns in mind as that work continues.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I start by wishing you, Mr Speaker, and the House a happy Commonwealth Day.
Conservative-led Hertfordshire county council has done excellent work in supporting children with SEND, in my constituency and across the county, while seeing a 27% increase in requests for EHCPs in 2024. How is the Education Secretary directing her Department to provide further assistance to councils such as Hertfordshire, which is having to find more and more money from its budget to support students with SEND?
Catherine McKinnell
We recognise the challenges in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. A SEND improvement board chaired independently by Dame Christine Lenehan oversees progress and provides challenge. We know that the system needs wholesale reform; we are working at pace and will make an announcement as soon as possible.
SEND Education Support
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this really important debate.
Education is, and always will be, one of my top priorities. I am lucky enough to have visited many of my schools in South West Hertfordshire to see the excellent work that teachers are doing to ensure that every one of the children in my constituency has a good or excellent education. However, the statutory framework around parent choice should be working for schools, not against them. In my constituency, 17% of children have special educational needs, and I regularly receive correspondence and surgery requests from parents and constituents who are going through the process of trying to get an education, health and care plan for their child, or are dealing with the implementation of one.
I am glad that Hertfordshire county council has made progress in this area and is continuing to do so. It is important that progress continues to be made. As someone who is dyslexic, I understand at first hand the frustrations posed by special educational needs and learning disabilities, and how important it is that those with SEND have the support they need to succeed in school.
From conversations with schools in my area and officers at Hertfordshire county council, it is clear that the parent choice framework needs to change. Schools are gaining reputations for being good at educating children with special needs. That is something that all schools should strive for, but it has led to a higher concentration of children with EHCPs in some schools and very low numbers in others, placing a financial burden and additional pressure on the schools that provide such valuable support for children who need it. That should not be the case. All schools should be able to support children with special educational needs; it should not be left to a select few. Every parent wants the best education for their children, and that would allow all schools to continue to provide a top-quality education for all. I urge the Minister to consider changes to the statutory framework.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate.
Another week, another debate on SEND. Since the start of this Parliament, barely a week has gone by when we have not had questions or debates, either in this Chamber or the main Chamber, on special educational needs and disability provision. From what we have heard today—I particularly thank the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for her courage in sharing her constituent’s moving story—we know that every Member’s inbox is bulging with casework from constituents about the dire crisis in SEND, which is why these debates are so oversubscribed. We are also getting report after report. In the last few months, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Public Accounts Committee have all come out with the same damning verdict about a broken system, with money coming in but outcomes for children going down.
These are some of our most vulnerable children and young people, and we as a society must do our best to meet their needs. We know that families face a postcode lottery, with delays that can last months or even years and vulnerable children missing out on the support that they deserve and need. With special schools full, mainstream schools struggling to provide appropriate support because their budgets are so overstretched, and spiralling high-needs deficits leaving many local authorities on the brink of bankruptcy, it is clear that urgent reform is needed.
As we heard in a Westminster Hall debate just a few weeks ago, the process to get an education, health and care plan is often far too lengthy and far too adversarial. Families are increasingly forced to take their cases to tribunal, with the number of cases doubling since 2014. Local authorities lose almost all those cases, wasting annually over £70 million of public money that could be spent on supporting children and young people rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles. Given the huge rise in demand for support, and the previous Conservative Government’s failure to keep up with that demand, local authorities are too often struggling to meet their statutory responsibilities, forcing families to navigate a broken system to secure even the most basic support. As the former Education Secretary Gillian Keegan described it, it is a “lose, lose, lose” system for all.
Ministers have repeatedly, and quite rightly, stressed the need for mainstream schools to be more inclusive in order to meet the rising need for special needs support. I recently visited Stanley school in my Twickenham constituency which, like two other nearby primary schools, has a specialist resource provision. Children with complex needs are able to spend time with dedicated teaching assistants for support, but they have the opportunity to play, socialise and participate, where appropriate, in lessons and other activities with children in the school who are not part of the SRP.
As the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) referenced, we are seeing falling rolls in schools and space opening up. SRPs will be a key intervention in our approach to ensuring that mainstream schools can be more inclusive. However, finding and keeping the staff to support children in SRPs or other mainstream settings—or indeed in special school settings—is an ongoing challenge. SRPs need to be properly funded but, as things stand, the headteacher at Stanley explained to me, the maths just does not add up for him. He explained that his wider school budget is having to plug the shortfall in SRP funding. If we are to tempt schools to have SRPs, we are going to have to make sure that they have the resources to provide that SRP.
Support staff costs have risen over the past two years, with unfunded pay increases and increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the horizon. We know that local authorities, health services and schools are all struggling to recruit the number of staff that they need to meet growing demand—both to undertake assessments in the first place, when a child might be eligible for an EHCP, and then to meet that need in school.
A national survey of headteachers found that only 1% of senior school leaders believed that they had enough funding to meet the needs of pupils with SEND. A report by London Councils on SEND inclusion in schools found that stakeholders from across the sector said that they would be able to be more inclusive if they had more funding. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for increased funding for local authorities to reduce the financial burden on schools. We know that the £6,000 per pupil notional SEND budget, which each school is meant to allocate before applying for an EHCP, is, frankly, a fiction in today’s school finances, given the pressures on budgets up and down the country.
When I visited Stanley the other week, and when I visited a beautiful new school, Belmont school in Durham, last week, I was told by both headteachers that for many mainstream schools, the disincentive to take on children with SEND is the way that standard assessment tests and other public exam results are reported. Frankly, certain young people in those mainstream settings are not in a position to sit their SATs or GCSEs, yet their results, which will essentially be nil, are reported in the schools’ performance measures, which are available publicly. In a competitive schooling environment, where parents vote with their feet for the schools that typically have the highest grades, that sadly results in an incentive for too many schools to actively avoid taking SEND children on to their rolls. There are schools that are doing the right thing and including those children, but, as the Minister is considering how to make mainstream school more inclusive, I wonder what consideration she and other Ministers have given to this issue.
I would like to spend a moment focusing on special schools. For children for whom a mainstream setting is not right, special schools should, and in many cases do, provide the necessary educational support. However, we know that in May 2023, two thirds of special schools were at or over capacity, and the impact of that is children with complex needs being inappropriately accommodated in the mainstream, where their needs cannot be met, which sometimes has a detrimental impact on other pupils and, indeed, staff. Many parents in those situations feel forced to home school. We know that parents who feel that they have had no option but to home school are concerned about what some of the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will mean for their being able to ensure that their child is in an appropriate environment.
The lack of specialist provision is being played out in the eye-watering SEND transport costs that local authorities are having to fund to send children out of area. Add to that the cost of private special schools, which are being funded by the taxpayer. I will return to that subject in a moment, but I want to take this moment to welcome the provision in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open new special schools. For too long, local authorities that have identified a need, and that want to bid for funding and open special schools, have been turned down. A number of applications from local authorities that wanted to open special schools were turned down during the previous Parliament by the previous Government, so I welcome that change in the Bill.
Returning to private special schools, many private SEND schools provide an excellent education and are run as not-for-profit charities. However, the Minister is aware—I have raised this issue previously, not least in Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—that private equity firms and other profiteering companies are increasingly entering the special school market, as they see it, at an extortionate cost. Councils are spending £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools, which is more than double what they spent just a few years earlier. The cost of an independent special school place is, on average, double the cost of a state special school place. Some private equity companies running these schools are making a profit of 20%-plus. Typically, the private equity-owned providers, not the other private sector providers, have the highest level of profitability in the sector. I feel that our most vulnerable children and our local authorities are being held to ransom by some of these companies, which are not behaving in the best interests of our children.
Mr Mohindra
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we ban private equity companies from being involved in the sector?
Munira Wilson
No. As a Liberal—I have said this many a time—I believe in a mixed economy in many of our public services. I was about to make the point that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains important measures to stop profiteering in children’s social care. When I proposed an amendment in Committee to extend the profit cap to special schools, I explained that the private equity companies that are making a ridiculous amount of profit in the children’s social care sector are also running private special schools. Some are not making a huge profit, but I do not think a 20%-plus profit margin in a taxpayer-funded system is acceptable, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I proposed an amendment to the Bill to extend the profit cap to special schools. I was disappointed that Labour Members and Ministers voted against it, but I again urge them to consider the proposal. We know we are in a cash-constrained environment—we hear every day from Ministers, not least the Chancellor, about how little money there is—but savings can be found in this area, and we can invest them back into our most vulnerable children.
My final proposal for Ministers, which the Minister has heard me talk about before, is that for our most complex children, we need a national body for SEND to fund those with exceptionally high needs who face a postcode lottery of provision across the country, and pose a particular risk to local authorities where those needs arise. That body could also have oversight of standards and budgets across the country.
I know that SEND is high on the Minister’s agenda. We are still waiting to hear how the £1 billion announced in the Budget will be allocated, but I fear that, given the £2.7 billion of local authority SEND deficits, it will disappear into a black hole. We have been promised reforms later this year, but our children cannot afford to wait. Children missing out on an education will never get that time back. Every child, no matter their needs or background, should be given the opportunity to thrive and fulfil their potential, yet too many children with SEND are simply not getting that right now.
Antisocial Behaviour: Hertfordshire
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Taylor
I entirely agree, and I would point to some of the visits I have made to businesses in my constituency because, as the hon. Member will know, there are similar themes. It is a slightly different point, but I am grateful that this Government are planning to bring in new measures to crack down on shoplifting, which is also a big problem and often goes unpunished.
Hemel Hempstead, my community, is in a tough position. In January 2024 we were the worst major town in Hertfordshire for antisocial behaviour, with more than 200 reported incidents. The town centre is one of the most dangerous towns in Hertfordshire. Local stakeholders told me just this morning that Dacorum has the highest number of vulnerable children at risk of exploitation from drug dealers and county lines in the county. The overall crime rate in 2023 was 95 crimes per 1,000 people. Damningly, between 2014 and 2024, the crime rate doubled. On the doorstep and at my surgeries, many Hemel residents have asked me why we are in this mess. I tell them that we had a Conservative Government and, until 2023, a Conservative borough council; we have a Conservative county council and Conservative police and crime commissioner, and we had a Conservative MP.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Member’s party has been in government for over six months now. What has changed in that time?
David Taylor
The hon. Member knows that I try to work with him locally in a constructive way, and I will in future, but the problems that we have in Hemel Hempstead are 14 years in the making. Some of them go back 20 years, because of long-standing issues. It is fair to point out that the people in charge of those issues at the time could have done more to help resolve them. He will know that I am trying to find solutions together and not point the finger or look backwards, but the numbers do not lie.
It is impossible to ignore the indisputable fact that in the time that the Conservatives were in power—14 years nationally and longer locally—local crime has skyrocketed. They ignored anti-social behaviour, cut our police force by 20,000 officers nationally and took 60p out of every pound from local authorities. Objectively, that is why we are where we are. It is their mess, and people in my patch are the ones dealing with it. In the time that the Conservatives were in power, crime in Hemel doubled. I defy anyone to defend that record.
Mr Mohindra
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in allowing me to intervene again. Similar to parts of my constituency, Hemel has great transport links. County lines is a relatively new phenomenon, and one of the downsides of our road and train network is that crime is coming out of London. Has he worked with the London Labour Mayor to address those issues?
Government’s Childcare Expansion
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement.
Labour Members may take this opportunity to create a fictitious narrative about the alleged failures of the former Government on early years and childcare, but it will not wash with us and it will not wash with the British public. That is simply because our record on childcare is strong, so let me take this opportunity to remind the Government and the House exactly what it is.
In 2010, we extended the three and four-year-old entitlement, commonly taken as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. In 2013, we introduced 15 hours of free early education a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds. In 2017, we doubled the three and four-year-old entitlement to 30 hours per week for working parents, as well as introducing tax-free childcare, which meant that for every £8 people paid in, the Government would automatically add £2 to support childcare costs—on top of the free-hours entitlement. In March 2023, we announced the biggest expansion of childcare by a UK Government in history. It was intended to give working parents access to 30 hours of free childcare a week, from when their children were nine months old until they started school, and to save families an average of £6,900 a year. Our reason for doing that was simple: childcare is one of the biggest costs facing working families today, as well as one of the biggest barriers to parents returning to work if and when they wish to do so. I want to take this opportunity to thank early years providers, local authorities, membership bodies, and other key partners who have made delivering this possible.
I welcome the fact that the Government have finally agreed that rolling out our childcare expansion will empower parents to make the choice that is best for them, and are committed to doing so. I am, however, disappointed that they did not do more to spread awareness among parents of the childcare entitlements that became available in September. Will the Minister tell us whether there was any unspent budget for this, and will he now commit himself to increasing the publicising of childcare roll-outs so that parents are rightly aware of their entitlements?
Of course the Opposition welcome the expansion of childcare and support the idea of utilising unused space in schools, which provides a single point of contact for parents with multiple children, but will the Minister tell us how many childcare places the first 300 new or expanded nurseries will provide? The Government previously pledged to deliver 3,000 nurseries to support 100,000 childcare places. What will be the timeline for the delivery of the rest of those nurseries, and are the Government still committed to the creation of 100,000 childcare places across the country in the long term?
The Education Secretary has confirmed that early years and childcare are her No. 1 priority, which I wholeheartedly support. However, the Government’s education tax will mean that children in classes in which one child is five years old, or is due to turn five by the end of the year, will be subject to the Government’s retrograde education tax regardless of their age. Will the Minister confirm that that is indeed a broken promise? How can the British public trust the Education Secretary’s word that she will prioritise early years and childcare when she has already broken a promise within the first 100 days of a Labour Government?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister for his response, and welcome him to his place. I know that he will want to be a keen champion for the early years sector, and I was glad to hear him welcome the update that I have given to the House.
As I said in my statement, Labour is committed to the delivery of expanded entitlement across Government. The last Government left significant challenges, but we are not shirking that responsibility. With Labour, the early years sector can rest assured that we will be working tirelessly to deliver a wider sea change in early education, as well as high and rising standards throughout the education system.
Let me now deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. It is clear to me from my consultation and engagement with parents and providers so far that we have inherited a pledge without a plan, and the consequences of that are inherited delivery challenges relating to workforce and places. I appreciate the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the workforce; I believe by resetting the relationship with the workforce, we can have a much more positive relationship with the sector in the future.
Over 300,000 children have benefited from the entitlement offer since September this year, which demonstrates that we are actively engaging and working with parents to promote opportunities to take up the offer. We will continue to do so.
On school-based nurseries, the pilot during the testing phase is for 300 places from April. Our ambition is for 3,000 places over the course of this Parliament. I look forward to working with the hon. Member constructively to bring about the change that early years education so desperately needs.