SEND Provision and Reform

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gregory Stafford]

Given the time available, I will probably not take too many more interventions. On the hon. Gentleman’s point, it is a strange argument that, because a child has been legally given an EHCP that requires a certain level of support but, for whatever reason—whether through the school, perhaps, or the local authority—that cannot be provided, we should therefore water down their legal rights.

When the current system works—and it does work in places—it is transformational. One parent in my constituency wrote:

“We are incredibly relieved. I have received the final copy of the EHCP, and the school is now implementing it. It has been a long road.”

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gregory Stafford]

No, I will not.

That parent’s relief exists because there is a system that ultimately guarantees support. Replacing that certainty with ambiguity is not reform; it is regression.

The second test is whether the proposals improve delivery on the ground. The model set out in the White Paper relies heavily on early intervention through the NHS and local schools, but that depends on capacity that currently simply does not exist. For example, in the Hampshire and Isle of Wight integrated care board, CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—waiting times stand at about 28.5 weeks for an assessment, rising to 52 weeks for treatment, far beyond the NHS standard of 18 weeks. Without clinical capacity, the central delivery mechanism of these reforms cannot function as intended.

Schools are already being asked to fill that gap. In discussions with headteachers and special educational needs and disabilities co-ordinators across my constituency, including at South Farnham school, Highfield South Farnham, St Polycarp’s, St Mary’s, and Badshot Lea infants, a consistent picture emerges: rising demand, limited special support and growing pressure on staff to manage needs that should sit elsewhere in the system. One school put it plainly:

“CAMHS sometimes ask us to manage pupils ourselves because they do not have the capacity.”

That is not joined-up delivery; it is displacement of responsibility.

The consequences of this gap between the policy and the reality are severe. In my constituency, a 12-year-old whose needs were identified in year 2 is still awaiting an assessment. Without diagnosis, her school has been unable to put the right support in place. Her mother wrote:

“We are at our wits’ end. The delays are not just administrative—they are shaping the course of our daughter’s life.”

That is not an isolated example. I have also worked with a family who, despite clear professional evidence, were initially refusing an EHCP and forced into a lengthy tribunal process, only for the decision to be overturned.

There are further consequences of these proposals that need to be addressed. By moving away from a clearly defined, legally enforceable EHCP framework towards individual support plans, much of the responsibility for decision making—and, inevitably, dispute resolution—risks being pushed on to schools. That would place teachers and school leaders in an increasingly difficult position: they would be expected to determine provision, manage expectations and resolve disagreements with families without the protection of a clear statutory framework or the capacity to meet those needs. At a time when schools are under significant pressure, this risks shifting both the legal and emotional burden on to institutions that are simply not equipped to carry it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am glad his local area has received that investment. Indeed, the two boroughs in my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham will get a 10% increase in SEND funding for next year to support new, dedicated SEND spaces in every secondary school. That sort of thing is happening across the country, and it is absolutely right that it should.

These are real commitments, seriously made: nearly £4 billion for school improvements, new therapists and specialists, and better teacher training; the new individual support plans for every child with SEND; and the EHCP and tribunal rights being retained for those with the most complex needs. All are seriously made commitments, and I welcome them, but I have to say that questions none the less remain—some of them have been raised today. I have just three questions for the Minister, and the first relates to enforceability. If a school fails to deliver what is written in a child’s individual support plan, I do think parents need a clear legal route to resolution.

[Peter Swallow]

I recently hosted an open meeting with parents on these reforms. Although there was widespread welcoming of much of what is in the White Paper, they urged that real, sustained change should happen. One concern was about the enforceability and accountability for ISPs, what would happen if a school was not delivering what was needed to support a child, and where that accountability would fall.

[Ben Coleman]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There has been talk about a beefed-up school complaints process. I do not think that will be sufficient, and I ask the Minister to consider extending the remit of the local government and social care ombudsman to provide a binding route—a statutory backstop—to resolution when schools and other settings fall short.

My second question is about health and social care co-ordination. This is where the White Paper is perhaps most silent, and where the current system is most visibly broken. As has been mentioned, the Health and Social Care Committee, of which I am a member, recently examined how the health aspects of EHCPs are being delivered, and the result was depressing. One of the biggest problems is that integrated care boards and local authorities simply do not jointly commission children’s therapy services. Back in 2014, a truly joined-up education, health and care plan was exactly the ambition that was being strived towards, but Health never fully showed up and the then Government allowed it to get away with that for years. We now have to tackle that, and witnesses to our Committee urged that the Government mandate local authorities to have representation on ICB decision-making boards. Is the Minister prepared to give that serious consideration?

Finally, children with SEND spend most of their lives outside the classroom, cared for by parents, who receive remarkably little support. Will the Minister commit to a clear, published expectation that health and social care will provide families with the information, guidance and practical support that they need?

The White Paper shows that the Government understand that the system is broken and are prepared to invest. Success is going to depend on many things, including whether Health finally shows up, whether ISPs are properly enforced and whether families get the support that they need. I have every confidence that this Government are going to carry on doing the right thing, and I look forward to improving the lives of disabled children and young people, and their families.