SEND Funding

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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—]

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.