Ministers urged to keep care plans for children with special needs
An EHCP is a legally binding document which ensures a child or young person with special or educational needs gets the right support from a local authority.Full details of the proposed changes are due in October, but ministers have not ruled out scrapping the education plans, insisting no decisions have been taken.In a letter to the Guardian newspaper, campaigners have said that without the documents in mainstream schools, "many thousands of children risk being denied vital provision, or losing access to education altogether"."Whatever the Send system's problems, the answer is not to remove the rights of children and young people. Families cannot afford to lose these precious legal protections," they added.Signatories to the letter include the heads of charities, professors, Send parents including actor Sally Phillips, and campaigners including broadcaster Chris Packham.Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Ms Phillipson saidL"What I can say very clearly is that we will strengthen and put in place better support for children."I've been spending a lot of time listening to parents, to disability rights groups, to campaigners and to others and to colleagues across Parliament as well, because it's important to get this right," she added, but said it is "tough".Mr O'Brien, the shadow minister, said the government had "no credibility left"."This is a government defined by broken promises and u-turns. They said they would employ more teachers and they have fewer. They said they would not raise tax on working people but did," Mr O'Brien said.Data from the Department for Education released in June showed that the number of EHCPs has increased.In total, there were 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025, up 10.8% on the same point last year.The number of new plans which started during 2024 also grew by 15.8% on the previous year, to 97,747.Requests for children to be assessed for EHCPs rose by 11.8% to 154,489 in 2023.A Department for Education spokesperson said: "We have been clear that there are no plans to abolish Send tribunals, or to remove funding or support from children, families and schools."The spokesperson added that it would be "totally inaccurate to suggest that children, families and schools might experience any loss of funding or support".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why Keir Starmer could face a fresh rebellion over disability support for Send children?
Sir Keir Starmer is yet to recover from the bruising U-turn on his botched benefit cuts, but he is already facing a fresh rebellion. A similar coalition of MPs and campaign groups, including many of the same charities that opposed reforms to welfare, are warning the prime minister not to cut education plans for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (Send). The PM was badly weakened by the chaos around his planned welfare bill, and backbenchers now appear to know they can force their leader's hand if they apply enough pressure. But Sir Keir, and his chancellor Rachel Reeves, will be acutely aware of the pressure on the public finances and can scarcely afford another multi-billion pound policy change. The Independent looks at why the government is under pressure over Send, and what it is likely to do about it. What are education, health and care plans (ECHPs)? An education, health and care plan (EHCP) outlines the tailored support needed by those aged 25 and under to meet their social care needs. It is designed to help those with disabilities get what they need to access learning and achieve their potential. The documents are legally binding, based on assessments by professionals and set out the support young people individually need. Are the ECHPs at risk? The campaign group Save Our Children's Rights has warned that the government is planning to weaken or remove the right to an ECHP, as well as other rights including the right to attend a suitable school and receive support such as speech and language therapy. It said the government plans are to save money, with support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities currently costing £12bn a year. The Department for Education has said there are 'no plans to remove funding or support from children, families and schools'. 'It would be totally inaccurate to suggest that children, families or schools might experience any loss of funding or support,' a spokesman said. Why would the government cut EHCPs? The government previously turned to support for the disabled when it sought to slash £5bn from the welfare bill through cuts to the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit. The argument was that the bill was rising unsustainably, and the National Audit Office (NAO) has raised a similar warning about ECHPs. The number of EHCPs soared by 150 per cent to 576,000 between 2015 and 2024, with the NAO estimating it could top 1 million by 2033. What have campaigners said? A letter to The Guardian on Monday signed by dozens of special needs groups said 'every sign from the government suggests the right to an ECHP is to be removed from children attending mainstream schools'. 'Whatever the Send system's problems, the answer is not to remove the rights of children and young people,' the letter said. It said removing ECHPs would not make young people's needs magically vanish, but would increase applications for already overcrowded special schools or force children out of school altogether. What have MPs said? One Labour MP preparing to rebel told The Independent that backbenchers are gearing up for a similar fight over ECHPs to the battle they fought over cuts to Pip. 'They have built strong relationships with Send campaigners, if they are now being told this is a betrayal, they will push back against any cuts,' the MP warned. Another was quoted in The Times as saying: 'If they thought taking money away from disabled adults was bad, watch what happens when they try the same with disabled kids.' When will the changes become clear? The government is expected to publish a white paper detailing its reforms to Send education in the autumn. It means that ministers have a chance to ensure they get any reforms right, and get backbenchers onside, in order to stave off any potential rebellion over the changes. But the long delay also means disability campaigners will have all summer to get in the ears of MPs, and that rebellious Labour parliamentarians will have plenty of time to plan a revolt. Ultimately, the reforms will represent a test of how well Sir Keir has listened and learned from previous handling of politically sensitive changes that make Labour MPs uneasy. Any changes will stand or fall on whether he has done the necessary outreach to MPs from across the party and the relevant campaign groups lobbying them. If not, he faces returning from the summer holiday to exactly the same problems he left behind.
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Landlords ‘looting' millions of leaseholders under Labour
Labour is allowing England's five million leaseholders to be 'looted' after stalling on its pledge to abolish the centuries-old system, campaigners have warned. A series of reforms aimed at boosting leaseholder powers have been unveiled by the Government, but critics argue they will fail to deliver change. Under new rules, leaseholders will be able to more easily challenge extortionate service charges, which they are required to pay to cover the upkeep of shared areas in their building. The new proposals – labelled 'performative nonsense' by campaigners – come after Labour previously rowed back on a commitment to abolish leasehold within 100 days of taking power. Housing minister, Matthew Pennycook, said the party still plans to bring the 'feudal system' to an end, but a timeline on the pledge has not been made clear. The smaller reforms have been proposed in a new consultation unveiled by Angela Rayner's Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It says leaseholders will receive a standardised service charge documentation each year which will spell out clear and detailed information about how their rates are calculated and spent. This is hoped to 'make it easier for them to challenge unreasonable bills, and potentially save money where expenses are unjustified'. Further reforms are aimed at stopping leaseholders who have successfully challenged their bill from having to automatically pay for landlords' litigation costs. Property managers will also be forced to qualify as professional practitioners for the first time. Mr Pennycook said: 'This bold package of reforms will arm leaseholders with greater rights and protections, and empower them to challenge poor practice and unreasonable charges and fees.' But Harry Scoffin, of the campaign group Free Leaseholders, said the proposals do not go far enough and leaseholders will continue to be 'looted' by landlords. He said: 'There is this endless number of consultations. The Government is investing all of this energy on tweaking the current system, rather than abolishing leasehold. We will continue to be looted. 'It's a real worry. Leaseholders are exhausted, and do not want to spend years of their life becoming serial litigators challenging their landlords, which is what would happen here. 'The Government says the reforms will strengthen the arm of leaseholders, but this won't work. These tribunals aren't friendly and leaseholders are sometimes up against KCs, literally the creme de la creme lawyers in the land.' Posting on X, Jay Silva wrote: 'More dithering. Why do we need more consultations? How many more of them do successive governments want?' Another user labelled the proposals 'performative nonsense'. They said: 'You said you would abolish leasehold and have not. This is more stalling.' Last October, Mr Pennycook warned that leasehold reform could take as long as five years, describing it as a 'whole of Parliament commitment'. In its manifesto, Labour said it would 'ban new leasehold flats and ensure commonhold is the default tenure'. The party went on to reiterate this promise in the King's Speech, also promising to regulate ground rents and to 'act quickly' to implement its reforms. In May 2023, Lisa Nandy, the former shadow housing secretary, said a future Labour government would bring forward legislation to abolish leasehold within 100 days. But in April, the party quietly dropped this pledge. The Leaseholders Charity said the Government's latest proposals – which are out for consultation until the end of September – were announced 'with as much enthusiasm as a visit to the dentist'. There are 4.8 million leasehold properties in England, equivalent to a fifth of the country's housing stock. In 2023-24, leaseholders paid an average annual service charge of £1,720, but some costs spiralled to five figures.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
The bottom line? Britain simply can't afford to impose a wealth tax
Sir Keir, what have you done? Having climbed down over welfare reform, the prime minister now faces a left-wing with the bit between its teeth. They are in the ascendant alright, and don't they know it. The latest to step up to the plate is Lord Kinnock. The former Labour leader says there are 'pathways' to raising taxes 'that, I think, people are willing to explore and actually would commend themselves to the great majority of the general public. 'They include, for instance, asset taxes in a period in which for the last 20-odd years in the United Kingdom, like quite a lot of other Western economies, earned incomes have stagnated in real terms while asset values have zoomed. They've just gone through the roof and they've been barely touched. 'Now, you wouldn't have to touch assets of under £6 million or £7 million, so people's houses would be secure, obviously. But even by going for an imposition of 2 per cent on asset values above £10 million, say, which is a very big fortune, the Government would be in a position to collect £10 billion or £11 billion a year.' Kinnock once told the party conference: 'I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos – you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services or with their homes.' Presumably he did not mean rich people who create those jobs. Because, make no mistake, he is playing politics with them, with their assets, with their success – and with the people who rely on the wealthy for their incomes, with an Exchequer that also depends on their taxes and their continued faith in Britain. Unfortunately, due to his status, Kinnock has a following. At least five trade unions have come forward to declare they will lean on Sir Keir Starmer to do what he suggests. Among them is Unison, once the employer of Angela Rayner, who was its most senior elected official in the North-West of England prior to becoming an MP. Christina McAnea, the Unison general secretary, said: 'A wealth tax would be a much fairer way of raising revenue to invest in public services and grow the economy.' Listening to and reading their outpourings you do have to wonder what planet they live on, which bit of a globally connected world, that is seeing countries (including those Western countries Kinnock refers to, which have seen asset values soar and incomes stagnate) falling over themselves to attract foreign investors they do not understand. Those nations know their money generates prosperity and jobs. Which is another way of saying economic growth. The evidence of rich folks voting with their feet and departing these shores is mounting by the day. Mostly they are non-doms, already a Labour target, but by no means all. One London restaurateur is nursing a 30 per cent drop in takings since Rachel Reeves delivered her first Budget. He says that is not the result of smaller plates and weight-conscious diners eating less thanks to Ozempic, but them having gone, leaving empty tables in their wake. Hers was the Budget that saw scrapping of non-doms' favourable tax breaks, VAT on private schools, air transport duty on private jets, inheritance tax for the most valuable farms and of course, an increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. There is a pattern here, to which Kinnock and his acolytes would now like to add a charge on assets over £10m. It might collect £10bn or so as he claims, but for how long? And what signal does it send to those who have earned their money and paid their dues – only for them to be taxed again? Kinnock fails to make the connection between the rich and philanthropy. Those charities that help the poor and disadvantaged, organisations that research cures for cancer and other conditions, and the arts and sport … – they would all suffer drops in their donations. It's also a London tax, which also adds to its appeal. Nothing beats clobbering the swanky capital inhabitants in their £10m-plus mansions – conveniently ignoring the fact that without many of them, the UK economy would be under water, that London is the country's investment hub. Fortunately, there are those in Labour who see sense. Liz Lloyd, a senior No 10 policy adviser, has reportedly questioned whether existing wealth taxes were harming her boss's mission of growing the economy. Hopefully, Starmer and Reeves will agree with her and not Kinnock and his ilk. For if they wish to give the lie of going 'faster and further' in kick-starting the economy, Kinnock's wealth tax would the best way of achieving it. The battle lines are being drawn. Starmer must resist. Britain's economic future depends on it.
