SEND Provision: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna McMorrin.)

I have secured this Adjournment debate to discuss the provision of special educational needs and disabilities in the London borough of Barking and Dagenham, an area that I am honoured to partially represent alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan). The backdrop to this debate is multifaceted, but my focus this evening is specifically on the pressure facing provision for children and young people.

There are currently over 5,500 children and young people in Barking and Dagenham schools who require SEN support. As of January 2025, 3,111 of these young people had an education, health and care plan—or EHCP, as they are more commonly referred to—with the following breakdown: 12 at nursery level; 1,350 at primary; 946 at secondary; 480 post-16; and 323 post-19. This clearly highlights that present pressures are felt most acutely across primary and secondary schools in Barking and Dagenham.

In 2022, requests for EHCP assessments saw a rise of 100%, an increase four times the national average, and in April 2025 there were 1,000 more children with EHCPs in the borough compared with January 2023, which is a 50% increase over 15 months. Since these spikes, the level of demand has remained high, with 500 to 600 new requests every year. This is partly due to population growth and churn, with about 26,000 additional residents since 2014, and a similar number of about 18% churn.

It is also worth noting that Barking and Dagenham still offers some of the cheapest housing options in London, which accounts for the sheer scale of the population growth. In 2024, 150 children and young people with existing EHCPs moved into, or were placed in, Barking and Dagenham from other boroughs, with around 40% requiring a specialist placement. Staff working in the education, health and care team at Barking and Dagenham council are recording caseloads of 200 to 300 per staff member, which is just not sustainable as a working model.

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward; she is right to do so. Does she agree that the progress on SEN action has shown how early intervention with a classroom assistant can make all the difference for many children, and that it is essential that the funding for teaching assistants is retained to ensure that the children in both St Joseph’s primary school in Dagenham and St Finian’s primary school in Newtownards have access to early intervention support and a bright future?

The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. The Minister was discussing that issue this afternoon and tomorrow my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) will have a debate on that very point.

Alongside that, the growing pressures in the health system and the shortages of educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and occupational therapists all serve to make the issue worse. As it currently stands, there is very little likelihood that the EHC teams will be able to meet the demand in Barking and Dagenham.

I hear the heartbreaking stories from Barking and Dagenham about the huge demand for SEND provision and the difficulty in meeting it. In Surrey, we have similarly heartbreaking cases of children with autism who cannot move out of mainstream school because the capacity is not there. As a result, one of my constituents is getting bullied terribly and the council has refused to fund his place in a specialist school. But that story is not unique in Surrey or in Barking and Dagenham. Despite that, the county council leader, Tim Oliver, claimed that the vast majority of SEND families in Surrey are happy with their support. That is despite the council suppressing a survey of 1,000 parents for six months—

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is far too long. As the Adjournment started before 10 o’clock, he will of course be free to make a speech.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points. That is happening against a backdrop of 14 years with no investment for councils and they are really struggling.

On behalf of the local authority, I urge the Department for Education to invest more in the development of truly inclusive schools, well-funded and resourced, so that Barking and Dagenham can increase the provision of SEND support in a mainstream setting. If the local authority could ensure a high standard of support through on-site additionally resourced provision and other mainstream settings, that would reassure the parents of children with SEND that their child’s educational needs will be met without reliance on an EHCP. I think that would help to significantly reduce stress and anxiety, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to, for thousands of people in our borough.

Having spoken to many parents of children with SEND across my constituency, I know that they have to fight for everything and that in most cases they get little to no support at present without an EHCP in place. The system is too convoluted, and it does not work for parents, children or local authorities. More needs to be done to streamline the assessment process, so that parents are not jumping through hoops for months on end, and that the best possible care and educational support can be delivered without the constant battle that parents currently face.

When considering the provision of services in Barking and Dagenham, we must also take account of the level of deprivation and the impact that has on the level of need. Barking and Dagenham has the 21st highest deprivation score of the 317 local authorities in England, with 62% of households in the borough having at least one measure of deprivation as measured on the index of multiple deprivation. Furthermore, 46% of children in Barking and Dagenham are estimated to live in poverty, which is the third highest across England and Wales.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Anna McMorrin.)

There are now 33 primary and secondary ARPs in the borough, compared with just 14 a decade ago. Over that period, the number of children who rely on the services has increased from around 180 to 450. Despite the creation of 230 specialist places over a four-year period, with 90 more planned by September this year, thereby increasing the proportion of children with SEND in mainstream schools, the local authority still faces a monumental challenge to provide enough places to support the needs of all the children who require them.

Over the past decade, the local authority has worked diligently to ensure that our schools are inclusive, and has aimed to place children and young people with SEND in local mainstream schools where possible. This has resulted in many of those children going on to achieve very well. Taking this approach has enabled the council to manage the dedicated schools grant high needs block within budget, despite chronic underfunding over the past 14 years under the previous Government—so much so that in 2024, Barking and Dagenham was recognised for effective practice and referenced in a What Works in SEND publication released by the Isos Partnership.

To a degree, the local authority is a victim of its own success in this area. When low housing costs are combined with exceptional SEND provision that delivers good educational outcomes, is it any wonder that the parents of children with complex needs are moving to Barking and Dagenham? Over the years, I have heard many stories from constituents who have moved to the area specifically for that reason. Most come from other London boroughs, but some are from as far afield as Cornwall.

At this point, I would like to personally thank the Secretary of State for Education for her visit to Becontree primary school earlier this year. The visit attracted positive press for our SEND provision, and highlighted the inclusive approach to SEND education in Barking and Dagenham schools.

I am glad the hon. Lady recognises the funding disparity between inner Greater London and outer Greater London. She will be aware of the DABD charity, which is based in her constituency. It provides special educational needs support for young children during the summer, Christmas and Easter terms, but the charity has been defunded, so it cannot carry on its activities for young people based in the London borough of Havering, which the hon. Lady also represents. Will she join me in calling for Havering council to ensure that that funding continues so that those children can get the benefit the charity provides?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. My seat covers two councils, and I always want the best outcome for my constituents. I agree with him and would be happy to do that.

Councils are on the frontline of service delivery in Britain and although this debate is not about broader service funding, I must take this opportunity to thank the Government and to welcome the introduction of the recovery grant as part of the most recent local government funding settlement—a move that marked a significant step change from the previous Administration. However, I return to the subject of SEND provision and funding allocation, which desperately needs a similar step change, as I begin to conclude my contribution.

The London borough of Barking and Dagenham is doing everything that the Government are asking of it, yet we are still working to a system built by the Conservatives. The last Government allocated safety valve funding based on the scale of the deficit rather than the scale of need. The safety valve agreements essentially mean that a local authority must cut its spending to meet targets; in return, it gets a contribution towards its overspend. That means that our local authority, having worked to implement inclusive strategies, often through innovative means, to reduce pressures on the high needs budget, gets nothing from that funding stream.

In comparison, authorities such as Kent, which have far less deprivation and need, have received in excess of £42.6 million since 2023-24. A fraction of that money would help Barking and Dagenham maintain and progress the inclusive service it has worked so hard to deliver over the past decade. I must say that it is wonderful to see our inclusive SEND provision under the national spotlight, being championed by Ministers, but it still beggars belief that under the current system, if a local authority manages to fly in the face of low expectation and deliver an exemplary service, it is penalised within the safety valve programme.

I was moved by the speech just made by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) and heartened to hear about the effectiveness of SEND provision in Barking and Dagenham. It is so important that we have effective examples of that in the country—particularly at the moment, when the Government are considering their national SEND provision. It was encouraging for me to hear that. From my experience in my constituency, a vital part of what we have to do is tackling the culture of dishonesty that certainly exists in my local authority—I do not know about elsewhere. That culture is a key barrier to effectively addressing SEND provision.

The issue could not be more serious. Constituents of mine—suicidal children with autism—are repeatedly denied the support that is their right. Desperate parents come to me, their MP, trying to beg the council to do its duty. The level of dishonesty is hard to exaggerate. Surrey has the highest level of complaints to tribunals in the country. It covered that up for over 14 months from its own internal council scrutiny committees. The county council leader then denied that in a formal written response to the Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament in Surrey. The council’s next trick, as reported by ITV, was to reclassify complaints as “inquiries”, to try to manipulate its complaints volumes. It then denied that there was a problem at all and said that the problem was, in fact, that Surrey parents are “too articulate”. Most recently, the county council leader said in the annual general meeting that “the vast majority” of Surrey SEND parents have a good experience of SEND. That was despite them suppressing for six months a survey of 1,000 SEND parents in which only 16% said that they trusted the county council on SEND and only 21% said that they trusted case officers to act in the best interests of their child.

It is a matter of extreme concern for me that the Government are putting so much faith in local authorities on SEND reform when, certainly in my case, they are so manifestly dishonest. I am particularly worried about Surrey, because the county council leader is chairman of the County Councils Network and so has major influence over SEND reform across the country. I am also worried about the fact that local authorities are saying that the way to solve the SEND crisis is to water down parents’ right to apply for an EHCP. There are many things wrong with the SEND system, but that is the one thing parents do have confidence in. It may take far too long to get an EHCP, but at least they have their legal rights and can go to tribunal.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for securing this crucial debate.

Children with special educational needs have just as much potential as other children, and they deserve to have that potential nurtured. But for boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham, there is an urgent problem with SEND provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham has eloquently described, chronic underfunding and under-resourcing of vital SEND services has led to a critical situation whereby children are not getting the support that they need and parents are facing a constant battle and excessive waiting times to secure any support for their child. Last year in the borough, only 50% of decisions on EHCP needs assessments were made within six weeks, the rest taking much longer.

I know that this is a problem facing all boroughs, but it is particularly acute in Barking and Dagenham, which has a higher proportion of people applying for EHCP needs assessments than other boroughs. In my constituency, which is home to the boroughs of both Redbridge and Barking and Dagenham, the rate of disability is far higher in wards such as Marks Gate, which is the only ward in Ilford South that falls under Barking and Dagenham.

Against this backdrop of underfunding and comparatively high demand, Barking and Dagenham has a lot to be proud of. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham said, in 2024 the borough was recognised for effective practice in a report by What Works in SEND. However, there are some problems that good practice and perseverance cannot fix. The crisis in SEND stems from the wider issue of changing demographics and an outdated funding formula that has not kept up. Ilford South and the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge may be outer-London areas, but they are facing inner-London problems.

The hon. Member mentions Barking and Dagenham and Redbridge, but Havering is also in outer Greater London, and Marks Gate is next to Collier Row, as he knows. We are all underfunded. There is a total disparity when it comes to funding for outer Greater London areas. Will the hon. Member back my ongoing campaign for fairer funding not only for special educational needs but for a range of areas, because our boroughs on the edge of London and in Essex constituencies which fall within Greater London are not getting our fair share of resources?