SEND Provision: South-east England

Debate between Mike Martin and Monica Harding

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mike Martin]

I thank my fellow Kent MP for his intervention; I will address many of those points as I make progress. He is right that there is a reason for the statutory deadline for EHCPs, and it would be nice if local authorities could meet it.

To return to tribunals, between 2021 and 2024 Kent council spent more than £2 million on SEND tribunals, of which 98% were successful for the parents. If parents have the money and the emotional bandwidth, and can go to tribunal and fight, they will be successful. But we do not know the percentage of parents who decide that they are not able to put themselves through that process. That is one of the legacies, I am afraid to say, of Conservative mismanagement in Kent.

Since Reform took over two months ago, it has gone from bad to worse. A cabinet member resigned within 45 days, which is a day longer than Liz Truss managed, so one assumes his lettuce is still going strong. Another councillor has been suspended and is under investigation by the police. The matter is now before the courts, so I cannot say much more about that, but Members can have a google. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely. That meeting was relevant to this debate, but it is only one among a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government. Reform cannot even organise its own house, let alone grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale.

I am glad the Government are reviewing the system, because it needs to be reformed, but real change must be driven by the principles that the Lib Dems have articulated time and again. We must listen to the voices of children and families. They do not have all the answers, but they do have insight into how the system works, and we would do well to listen to them. Where appropriate, specialist capacity must be provided for the minority of children who have EHCPs and need specialist support.

For the vast majority of children who have special educational needs, we must drive inclusion in mainstream schooling, because that is appropriate. Mainstream schools prepare people for the mainstream world in a way that is more appropriate, provided that there is the extra provision, with teaching assistants and speech and language therapists, that can help the child to thrive in a mainstream setting. We are ready to work with the Government to improve the system.

Some of the media reports around the scrapping of EHCPs are concerning. It seems like a bit of a red herring. The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that—and before that we had statements. If we get rid of EHCPs, we will still need a statement of needs for passporting to services. If we scrap EHCPs, what will we replace them with? I am sure the Minister will speak to this in her response to the debate, but we must have an outcomes-based review of the system rather than a Treasury-driven, cost-cutting exercise. I hope the Government will learn from some of their recent travails in that regard.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

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

[Mike Martin]

My grandmother said that the mark of a civilised society is how it treats its most vulnerable—she was wise. She was very active in politics, but for a different party. [Interruption.] She made a journey that many people have made in recent years. Unfortunately, she is dead now. She would be 110 now if she were alive.

To return to the theme, it is morally right that we get this right, because these children and families are the most vulnerable among our constituents. It is also economically right, because if the children have the right provision, the parents can continue to work. Without the right provision, one parent will probably not go to work, so that has an immediate economic detriment. Allowing a child to thrive, to be included and to work in society as they get older affects the medium and long-term economic health of our society and our country, so it is both morally right and economically sensible. On that point, I will conclude: every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.