SEND Provision: South-east England

Monica Harding Excerpts

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. I rise today not just as a constituency MP, but as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities and as someone alarmed by what I see every day: a system stretched to the point of failure, with vulnerable children paying the price.

In my first year as an MP I have taken up 98 SEND cases, but I accept that that is just the tip of the iceberg in my constituency. Those cases include a family whose son’s autism assessment is so delayed that he will finish school before he gets the help he needs. Another family is spending over £10,000 on tribunal proceedings. This is not a system; it is a fight, and families are losing. Across both Surrey and Hampshire, 3% of pupils in state-funded schools have an EHCP and a further 13% receive SEND support, but behind the numbers are children waiting years for basic support, parents forced into legal battles just to access what their children are entitled to and councils collapsing under the sheer volume of demand, without the necessary support that this requires from national Government.

The crisis is compounded by serious concerns about legality and quality. I have heard credible reports of educational psychologist assessments being drafted by trainees and rubber-stamped without proper oversight—a process designed to evade scrutiny, not deliver support. Meanwhile, the cost of failure is spiralling. In Surrey alone, more than £13 million a year is spent on taxis to bring more than 500 children to school. Nationally, the average cost of special school placements is now over £61,000 per child per year, and councils are staring down a projected £5 billion SEND deficit by 2026.

All of that is worsened by the Government’s ideological attack on independent schools. Schools like More House and Undershaw school offer bespoke, life-changing provision, often in partnership with local authorities, for children who cannot cope in mainstream education. However, tax changes and policy hostility are forcing closures, reducing places and driving up costs. The result is fewer options for children and more pressure on already overwhelmed state schools. I pay tribute to Councillor Jonathan Hulley, who has just taken over as the new cabinet member in Surrey and is trying his best to grapple with this problem.

As we have heard across the Chamber, this is not a Surrey or Hampshire problem; it is country-wide, and the Government need to step up. Will the Minister ringfence capital funding to expand specialist places in high-need areas? Will she publish guidance and support to reduce the cost and overuse of solo SEND transport, which is neither sustainable nor in the child’s best interest? Will she protect alternative and independent providers that deliver high-quality specialty education?

[Monica Harding]

I thank my fellow Surrey MP for his thoughts. Last year, nearly half of Surrey’s high needs block of £122 million was spent supporting SEND places at non-maintained independent schools. Placing those children in state-maintained school is often half the cost. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we need to put more money into state schools rather than independent schools, which are often run by private equity firms taking money out of local authorities and making profit on the backs of very vulnerable children?

[Gregory Stafford]

I respect the hon. Lady deeply, but I must say that I entirely disagree. Pitting the state sector against the independent sector, and vice versa, is entirely the wrong way to go about it—it would damage education. I am very happy to take her around More House or Undershaw in my constituency to show her the amazing work that those two schools do; she may change her tune once she has seen that.

The key thing is this: will the Government step up and make the national changes and reforms to make this system fair, equitable and sustainable across the country? SEND families are asking not for special treatment but for lawful, timely and compassionate support. No child should feel hopeless in the very system meant to help them, and no family should be forced to break themselves to secure basic rights. Let us fix this, and mean what we say when we talk about inclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this hugely important debate. Like many other Members here, SEND is probably the subject that I get the most emails about, and it is very closely related to children’s mental health, which I will start by discussing.

The process of struggling to access an educational support plan starts right from trying to get a diagnosis. It is difficult to get a diagnosis through CAMHS for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or for being on the autism spectrum. Delays of more than two years are not only awful for individuals, but make up a huge chunk of their time in school. If a child is eight or nine years old and has to wait two years for diagnosis, it is very difficult for them to make up for that lost time.

Although we should be clear that ADHD and being on the autism spectrum are not themselves mental health issues, if such conditions are unrecognised and undiagnosed, and are not supported in school, that can lead to mental health issues, including children feeling inadequate and struggling to achieve what they should. That causes a lot of stress and anxiety.

[Monica Harding]

In Surrey, for example, 1,800 children with special educational needs are missing education because there is no provision. They are sliding into poor mental health as a result, and that needs to stop. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Dr Chambers]

I completely agree. The issue that everyone has brought up today is that the system is adversarial right from the point that parents try to get a diagnosis in the first place to show that their child needs support. When they finally do, they then have to fight tooth and nail—including in time-wasting tribunals, which take a large emotional and financial toll—to get the support that their child is entitled to.

Even once the child gets the support package required, that is not guaranteed all the way through schooling. Let me give a bit of an extreme example: I was recently contacted by a parent whose child, who has just one week to go in primary school, still does not know where he will go to secondary school. The parent and the headteacher of the primary school have asked continually, but there is no clear response. In this instance, Hampshire county council has failed to plan on time and ignored parental choice. It is insisting at the last minute on a wholly unsuitable mainstream school, which has no record that the child is coming and says that it cannot meet his needs—and we are talking here about a parent who managed get the package required for their child in primary school.

I could talk about this for half an hour, given the amount of casework I have. There is a huge issue about how we pay for SEND, but we must also consider what happens if we do not pay for it, as some other Members have touched on. The issue is a little like free school meals: if a child goes to school either hungry, or with undiagnosed learning needs that are not being met, they are clearly not going to fulfil their full educational potential. They will not get a job that pays as well as one they could otherwise have got and they will be more likely to end up on welfare throughout the rest of their life.

We have a prison in Winchester, and some 25% of the prison population are diagnosed with ADHD, compared with 3% to 4% of the general population, while 9% have autism spectrum disorder, compared with 1% to 2% of the general population. It costs £50,000 a year to keep someone in prison, yet apparently we cannot afford to give people the support they need in school to help them to make better life choices. If we did that, it would be better for those individuals and more cost effective for the taxpayer in the long run.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this crucial debate. The number of people in the Chamber and the power of the testimony that we have heard are testament to how important the issue is to our constituents across the country.

Since I was elected as MP for Surrey Heath, special educational needs has been the single biggest issue to dominate my email inbox. That is a refrain that we have heard from many other Members. It is bigger than housing and the cost of living crisis—it is even bigger than potholes. That is because, certainly in Surrey, there is a deep and ongoing SEND crisis. Right now, I have more than 140 active cases involving children with special educational needs, many because Surrey county council has issued EHCPs in the wrong names, describing the wrong conditions or offering wrong and inappropriate packages of support. Those EHCPs often come only after weeks and months of parents fighting and advocating for their children and asking SEND co-ordinators at the schools to do the same.

Over the past three years, Surrey has had the highest number of tribunal appeals anywhere in the country—a fact that, very unfortunately, it chose to hide from its own scrutiny committee for more than 14 months and that the leader of Surrey county council denied in writing to Surrey’s Lib Dem MPs. Children, broken and neglected by the system, have attempted suicide. Parents, shattered by endless roadblocks and barriers, become permanent carers for their children, who cannot be placed in schools—and at what economic cost? SENCOs and teachers, already stretched to breaking point, spend their days chasing paperwork instead of supporting pupils.

An ITV investigation recently revealed that when parents lodged official complaints, Surrey county council—with a sleight of hand and a swift move of the pen—simply reclassified those complaints as inquiries in order to massage those problematic figures downwards. Zooming out across England, councils are carrying a hidden SEND deficit of almost £5 billion, as the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) said, parked off their books by a temporary accounting override that ends in March 2026. When that expires, more than 60 local authorities face the risk of insolvency overnight.

Ministers promised a White Paper this spring to recalibrate the system; now we are told that the Department for Education cannot commit to publishing plans for at least six months. Many parents consider that uncertainty an insult. Their lives revolve around EHCP reviews, tribunal appeals and statutory deadlines. Rumours abound that the Government may attempt to scale back or even scrap the EHCP and replace it with a narrower, potentially cheaper framework. Let me be absolutely clear: they cannot, and should not, remove statutory protections before they have built the capacity to replace them. Removing EHCP rights in a vacuum would strand families in legal and emotional limbo and potentially drive councils even closer to collapse.

The Liberal Democrats believe that reform of the SEND system is long overdue—I think that is a position shared across the House—and to guide that reform we have set out a five-point plan. I want to highlight just three of those key points. First, in any changes, we must put children and families at the forefront of reform. Reform cannot be done to families; it must be done with them. They are essential partners in redesigning a system that shapes their children’s futures.

Secondly, we must recognise that inclusion and specialist support are not opposing ideas. We need both inclusion in mainstream and specialist capacity where each is appropriate. They need to be boosted in parallel. Right now, 67 specialist free schools approved by the Government are currently stuck in limbo waiting to open. That is 67 communities left in the lurch. At the same time, councils should be empowered to open specialist hubs within mainstream schools and allowed to get on with it without tripping over Government red tape. Inclusion only works when it is resourced. Without resource, it becomes exclusion by another name.

Finally, we must support local government to do its job. That means reforming a system where private SEND providers, too often backed by hedge funds, extract eye-watering profits. I have heard in my own area of fees being charged in excess of £130,000 a year for access to independent private provision—more than double the average cost of educating a child with special educational needs. That is not an attack on the independent sector, but it is an attack on profiteering on the backs of the most vulnerable.

[Monica Harding]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very difficult to measure accountability in these schools? Where does accountability sit, and how do parents know that their children are achieving in those schools?

[Dr Pinkerton]

Accountability is very often opacity. I have certainly seen examples of schools charging those fees I have just mentioned, in excess of £130,000 a year, with extremely opaque governance structures, so I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention.

We also need a fair funding guarantee and ringfenced central support for every child whose assessed needs exceed a defined cost threshold. Councils should never be forced to choose between their budgets and a child’s future. I say to the Minister, in the spirit of cross-party support and in the desire to ensure a better system for the future, “We share your concern about the broken system—but any reform must start with strengthening rights, not dismantling them.” That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a new national SEND body, an independent commission to oversee the most complex cases, guarantees of fair funding and performance tracking across England.

I hope that we can come together across this House to publish a White Paper within three months, with clear timelines, resourcing and genuine co-production with parents and families. We need to extend the high-needs deficit override until councils are properly supported. Let us open every delayed special school in this Parliament, so that no child is left without a place. We must seize this opportunity, this moment, to get SEND reform right, before any more children are failed in Surrey or across these isles.