SEND Provision and Reform

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

When addressing this subject, I think of the 16 years of surgeries I have had where parents have come in to explain their profound dissatisfaction with the way in which the evaluation of their child’s needs has been conducted. One of the most powerful examples was a constituent who came to me and said that their son has complex SEND needs, including: autism; ADHD; sensory processing disorder; demand avoidance; social, emotional and mental health; and severe anxiety and school trauma. They went on to tell me that for the last eight years, there had been a series of failings in dealing with their situation—an inadequate and inaccurate EHCP, and school placements and support failures—and then went on to tell me the enormous impact on their family.

I honestly believe that everyone in this place wants to get the right improvements to this broken system.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Two of my constituents, Tom and Emily—they are brother and sister—got EHCPs after tribunal fairly early, because their parents were so robust. They then only got suitable schools after tribunal, against the will of the local authority, because their parents were so robust. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that any reforms to the process must be enforceable?

[John Glen]

I do, but I want to address the key point that I think we all have to acknowledge. Between 2014 and 2023, there was a 140% expansion in the number of EHCPs to well over half a million. In generating that volume of demand, Members in all parts of the House—no matter who is in government—have to be honest about whether, given the budgets we have, we can actually provide solutions that meet the needs of every individual child. We are all trying to make the case to achieve that, whether through EHCPs giving us the legal backstop, or moving to an individual support plan in a school-based solution.

I want us to recognise that, in defining needs so much more broadly, we have created such a demand and expectation of the state. We have to be real about what we can and cannot provide. This is very delicate territory, because we are always concerned that we will be accused of denying that the needs exist, but what concerns me is that we will set expectations that the school will set up an individual definition of provision and it will not be met in exactly the same way that we have seen with the challenges over the past decade. There is a central tension in the White Paper that, as we move from a rights-based system of statutory entitlements to a resource-led system, the situation will automatically improve.

It seems to me that the representatives of those with unmet SEND provision and the charities are concerned that having set expectations in our country that EHCPs are legally enforceable, there will be an enforceability gap. With the proposed ISPs, although parents might have the right to a plan, they will not have the legal right to the provision it contains. If we standardise things over individual needs and move to a situation where we have nationally determined fixed packages of support, we will risk getting into exactly the situation that we have reached in recent years.

[Cameron Thomas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once more. He is treading this compassionate tightrope very delicately. I have an organisation in my constituency called Children Lead The Way, which takes children who are struggling in the traditional setting outdoors, and some of those children are later able to go back into the school system. Rather than underdiagnosing, which, if we are not careful, might be the end result here, would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to accept that if we reconsider the settings, it is possible that children who are taken out of settings may later be reintroduced?

[John Glen]

Of course I do. This is where the problem is. If we move towards a standardised provision that is driven by central Government or a latest orthodoxy, we risk missing the flexibility that should and needs to exist on an individual basis.

There is a core point about which I am still uncomfortable. In a situation where, as in 2024-25, parents won 95% to 99% of tribunal cases, it appears that the system has defined needs that exist for which we cannot provide. We need to level with the country and with parents and say what we can provide and what we are actually unable to provide.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[John Glen]

I will not have any more time, so I will not.

Let us not peddle a dishonesty by saying that we are going to deliver a perfect system. Frankly, we have got to the point where we need to look at the definitional parameters and get to a more honest conversation about how we are going to actually deal with this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree. An under-resourced officer can still determine need, still issue an EHCP and still be transparent about what cannot yet be delivered. That, at least, is honest.

I know that many council officers do the right thing, but when a council officer commits misconduct that results in an avoidable death, why are they not criminally prosecuted? Here we are, with pervasive local authority law breaking, hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves, and a Government who plan to cut the rights that can save their lives.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very moving and powerful speech, but is not the reality that if every single EHCP was properly diagnosed and the need expressed, it would impose an honest but unachievable burden on the state? Will he acknowledge that and address how we come to terms with it?

[Chris Coghlan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention and I completely disagree. Think about the autistic boy I was talking about at the start of my speech. He has been out of school for seven years and his father has quit his job to look after him. We have lost a lifetime’s earnings from that person and we have the costs of social services. I am convinced that by the time we take all that into account, an effective system based on effective early intervention, rigorous accountability for local authorities and legally enforceable rights would, in the long run, be far cheaper than what we have today.

The public will ask Members of this House what they knew about this scandal of hundreds of children avoidably killing themselves while there are myths about over-diagnosis and everything else, when they knew it, and what they did about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I should like to declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as the parent of a child with an EHCP. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing the debate. This is a deeply important subject and, like many Members across the House, I have an inbox full of cases of SEND parents who are struggling under the current system. Let us be clear: it is absolutely broken.

There has been a lot of discussion about whether the current system, or indeed our society as a whole, has the ability to meet all presenting needs. I would like to clarify something: unmet need does not magically disappear. It does not just go away. It festers and grows, which is what we see under the current system. We see children’s needs not being met at the earliest opportunity and being met only when they reach an absolute crisis point. By and large, that is what happens, and we end up with a system that ultimately lets down children.

The need for SEND reform and the work that the Minister has undertaken on the White Paper goes to the heart of who we are as a party. Equitable and equal education for everyone goes to the heart of socialist, progressive politics, and that is who we are. It is crucial that a child is not excluded from receiving education on the same basis as their able-bodied peers just because they are disabled or have an additional need. It is completely unacceptable if that continues to happen to them. The system that we have is antagonistic and adversarial. It puts fight and struggle at the heart of what should be the norm for every parent: obtaining a decent education for their children.

I would like to speak to some of the concerns—I notice that I have a short amount of time left—around the White Paper, because some do remain. There needs to be accountability in the system. If it is going to work, parents, schools and councils have to trust that the system will work. Accountability is about understanding, if my child’s school—hypothetically and realistically—does not do what it is supposed to do, how I make the school do it and what recourse I have to ensure that it does so.

[John Glen]

If we now have a more sophisticated understanding of an individual’s need, and if the provision required to meet that need across society has reached a cost and breadth that is so significant, how do we provide for that given the finite budgets that exist?

[Jen Craft]

We provide for it by meeting need at the earliest opportunity. It is about addressing it before it reaches crisis point, unlike the situation we are in now. We would not do this for any other condition. We would not say, “There are too many people out there with cancer—we should stop diagnosing cancer.” It would not work like that. We do not turn around and say, “Too many people are presenting a need”—we meet it. Imagine if we addressed the education system as a whole like we address SEND education—as a problem to be solved and not an opportunity that exists to create young people who are willing, equipped and able to go out into the world and shape our future society and our world. Why do we not see that opportunity for SEND children, as we do for the wider school population?