Keir Starmer braced for fresh rebellion over reforms
The Independent
Sir Keir Starmer is reportedly facing another rebellion from his backbenchers over reforms to support for children with special needs in England, just days after he was forced into a humiliating climbdown on welfare cuts. On Sunday, education secretary Bridget Phillipson insisted that ministers are committed to reforming support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities, which currently costs £12bn a year. But she refused to rule out scrapping key documents that families rely on to guarantee specialist help.
Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) are statutory documents which outline the support needed to help children with special needs and disabilities achieve key life outcomes. Many seeing them as the only way to get schools to provide the support children need. Asked whether she could rule out getting rid of EHCPs, Ms Phillipson described it as a "complex and sensitive area". Speaking to the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, she added: "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". But now senior Labour figures have told The Times that the plans risk becoming "welfare mark two", claiming that dozens of MPs are prepared to rebel over the issue.
One Labour MP urged the government to "think again now or they'll be repeating the same mistake they made with welfare reform."
"We're all in favour of reforming the system but that cannot be driven by saving money and taking support away from children", they added.
A second Labour MP said: "If they thought taking money away from disabled adults was bad, watch what happens when they try the same with disabled kids."
It comes after Sir Keir was forced to abandon a key plank of his controversial benefit cuts in order to get them through parliament following a major revolt from his backbenchers. In a letter shared with The Guardian, campaigners have said that without EHCP documents in mainstream schools, "many thousands of children risk being denied vital provision, or losing access to education altogether". They said: "For more than 40 years, children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities have had a statutory right to an education that meets their needs.
"Set alongside catastrophic plans to cut benefits for disabled people, this raises the question of who we are as a country and the kind of society in which we want to live. "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." Signatories to the letter include the heads of charities, professors, Send parents including actor Sally Phillips, and campaigners including broadcaster Chris Packham. The government has said it "inherited a Send (special educational needs and disabilities) system left on its knees" and it is "looking at changes" to improve support for children and parents.
Data from the Department for Education released in June indicated that the number of EHCPs has increased. In total, there were 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025, up 10.8 per cent on the same point last year. The number of new plans that started during 2024 also grew by 15.8 per cent on the previous year, to 97,747. Requests for children to be assessed for EHCPs rose by 11.8 per cent to 154,489 in 2024.
A Department for Education spokesperson said: "The evidence is clear that this government inherited a Send system left on its knees — which is why we are looking at changes to improve support for children and stop parents having to fight for help. We have been clear that there are no plans to abolish Send tribunals, or to remove funding or support from children, families and schools. "This government is actively working with parents and experts on the solutions, including more early intervention to prevent needs from escalating and £740 million to encourage councils to create more specialist places in mainstream schools.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Federal judge blasts Trump team over deportation plans
Alex Woodward, The Independent The federal judge overseeing Kilmar Abrego Garcia's legal challenge over his arrest and removal from the United States is hauling Trump administration officials to court to get to the bottom of the government's plans for the wrongfully deported Salvadoran immigrant. Abrego Garcia, whose case has been at the center of Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, is currently locked up in federal custody ahead of a trial on smuggling charges. If he's released from pretrial detention, immigration officials intend to arrest and deport him, again, before a trial even begins, according to the Department of Justice. After government lawyers and top Trump administration officials gave a series of conflicting statements about the fate of Abrego Garcia in recent weeks, District Judge Paula Xinis is ordering officials from the Department of Homeland Security to testify about their plans for his removal — answers that may reveal whether the criminal charges against him had anything to do with complying with court orders for his return. She scheduled a hearing on July 7. Abrego Garcia could be released from federal custody and turned over to Homeland Security as soon as July 16. During a hearing in Maryland on Monday, Justice Department lawyer Jonathan Guynn said the administration doesn't intend to hold Abrego Garcia in "limbo" with Immigration and Customs Enforcement while waiting for his criminal trial. "He will be removed, as would any other illegal alien in that process," he said. His remarks are the latest in a series of conflicting public statements from the administration after Abrego Garcia was abruptly returned to the United States from prisons in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia had been living in Maryland with his wife and child, both US citizens, along with two other children from a previous relationship, when he was arrested and deported to El Salvador on March 15 — what government lawyers admitted was an "administrative error" that defied an immigration judge's 2019 order preventing his removal. But the administration spent weeks battling court orders from federal judges and the Supreme Court to "facilitate" his return, claiming that they were powerless to return him while administration officials publicly asserted he would never again step foot in the United States. Last month, he was flown back to face a criminal indictment accusing him of illegally transporting immigrants across the country. He has pleaded not guilty. "Our plan is, he will be taken into ICE custody and removal proceedings will be initiated," Guynn said during a court hearing last week. But that same day, a spokesperson for the Justice Department told the Associated Press that the government will try Abrego Garcia on the charges against him before deporting him from the country. The White House also called the Justice Department's in-court statements "fake news." On Monday, Justice Department said they don't know where the government plans to deport him. "It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall trying to figure out what's going to happen," Judge Xinis said at one point on Monday. "For three months, your clients told the world they weren't going to do anything to bring him back," she said, pointing to statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the president himself. 'Am I really supposed to ignore all that?' she said. She also said she finds it 'highly problematic' that the Justice Department can't seem to answer whether government lawyers knew about the criminal investigation against him while battling in court over his wrongful removal. 'This time, Judge Xinis was not willing to let government lawyers say, 'We don't really know,'' Abrego Garcia's attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told reporters on Monday. "If they want to deport him to a third country, they need to name that country, and they need to describe the process by which they're going to give him due process," he said. The Supreme Court has paved the way for the Trump administration to deport immigrants to so-called third nations that aren't their home countries after a legal battle involving a group of deportees sent to war-torn South Sudan, where attorneys said the men face torture, abuse and death.
Middle East Eye
11 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
BBC bias: Attack on watchdog that skewered Gaza coverage is a feeble hit job
Reporters are supposed to hold power to account. To challenge official lies. To stand up for the underdog. Though there have been important exceptions - such as the Financial Times and, in recent months, the Guardian - in general the British media has failed to do its job during Israel's war on Gaza. This lack of scrutiny has made it much easier for prime ministers Rishi Sunak and later Keir Starmer as they have failed to challenge Israeli atrocities. Much of the reporting - especially in right wing papers like the Daily Telegraph, the Times and Daily Mail - has been twisted in favour of Israel. We believe that in due course the British media will be held to account for its role in enabling Israel's slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, seen by many experts as a genocide. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Throughout this period one small organisation has played a vital role in calling journalists to account. This is the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM), which was set up by the Muslim Council of Britain but is now independent. It has produced three landmark reports that skewer British reporting on Gaza. The first, published early last year, exposed the general collapse in standards across the written and broadcast press in the early months after 7 October. Last spring a second report showed how media outlets largely confined emotive language to Israeli rather than Palestinian victims. Then two weeks ago a third report shone a merciless spotlight on BBC bias. These reports compelled attention. Surprising figures such as Tony Blair's press secretary Alastair Campbell and the acclaimed former Today programme presenter Mishal Husain endorsed the BBC analysis. BBC coverage of Israel's war on Gaza 'systematically biased against Palestinians' Read More » To its considerable credit the BBC dispatched a senior editorial figure, Richard Burgess, to answer questions at the launch. For Israel's cheerleaders in the British media, all this may have been too much to bear. A counter attack on CfMM has been in the offing for months, and yesterday night Policy Exchange struck with an 86-page report. Better known by Fleet Street old-timers as a hatchet job. Policy Exchange calls itself a think tank - but has impeccable media connections on the right of British politics. The founding chairman was Michael Gove, now editor of the pro-Israel Spectator magazine and a former Tory minister. He was succeeded by Charles Moore of the Telegraph, a newspaper whose coverage of Gaza has been skewed. Another former chair was Danny Finkelstein of the Times. David Frum, notorious for coining the phrase 'axis of evil' as George W Bush's speechwriter, is yet another. Andrew Gilligan, a former Telegraph and Sunday Times journalist whose own reporting on British Muslims has been a subject of contention, is a senior fellow, and joint author of this Policy Exchange document. One of us, Peter Oborne, wrote a foreword for the CfMM report on the BBC which Policy Exchange quotes from in its report, as well as speaking at a parliamentary event to mark its launch. We have studied Policy Exchange's report. It is riddled with falsehoods and distortions. Every accusation a confession Andrew Neil, whose journalistic career includes spells as editor at the Sunday Times and as the long-time chairman of The Spectator, claims in the foreword that CfMM is engaged in enforcing a 'tendentious view of Islam and, sometimes, seeking to suppress truthful, factual reporting which happens to contradict that view'. As they say, every accusation is a confession. Neil might as well be describing some of The Spectator's reporting on Muslims during the years he was in charge. The report provides no evidence of CfMM seeking to 'suppress truthful, factual reporting' He asserts that the report proves 'CfMM is part of a wider campaign for legal restrictions on what you can say about Islam, with fundamental implications for free speech". These are sensational claims. They are also absurd. The report provides no evidence of CfMM seeking to 'suppress truthful, factual reporting'. CfMM says it supports the All-Party Parliamentary Group's definition of Islamophobia. The report that accompanied the creation of that definition insisted it was not 'intended to curtail free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion'. Policy Exchange accuses CfMM of saying that 60 percent of news stories about Muslims are Islamophobic. But the organisation has never said that. Policy Exchange further claims that CfMM 'has openly taken the side of intimidating mobs staging banned anti-gay demonstrations outside primary schools'. This is a deeply serious accusation. But there is no record of CfMM endorsing any such demonstrations. Failures of omission More important by far is what Policy Exchange omits. We had expected that the think tank would challenge the central thrust of the CfMM analysis of British media coverage of Gaza. This amounts to a serious body of work exposing one set of reporting rules for Israelis and another for Palestinians. Policy Exchange did not even try. Let's take as an example the recent CfMM finding that the BBC employed the word 'massacre' almost 18 times more often about Israeli than Palestinian victims - and never used the term in headlines about Israeli atrocities. No rebuttal from Policy Exchange. UK's charity regulator urged to investigate Policy Exchange over 'anti-Muslim agenda' Read More » The finding that BBC correspondents or presenters applied the term 'butcher' 220 times for actions against Israelis; just once for actions against Palestinians. No rebuttal. That Israeli deaths were reported in more emotive terms, with victims far more likely to be humanised with details about the names, family backgrounds and jobs. No rebuttal. That just six percent of the deaths of Palestinian journalists had been reported by the BBC. No rebuttal. The failure of the BBC (and wider media) to cover Israel's Hannibal directive, or the Dahiya doctrine, or statements of genocidal intent by Israeli politicians from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu down. Again, no rebuttal. Rather than confront these serious allegations made against British media reporting which lie at the heart of the CfMM argument, Policy Exchange has chosen to ignore them. One can only suppose that's because they are accurate. Unable to challenge the substance of CfMM's work, it has tried to discredit it with smears. In footballing terms, Policy Exchange has played the man and not the ball. One last point needs to be made. CfMM's report into British reporting of Gaza have been largely ignored in mainstream press and media. By contrast, the Policy Exchange attack on CfMM has been noisily amplified in the Mail, the Telegraph, The Times and GB News. We rest our case M'lord.
The National
14 hours ago
- The National
Macron begins state visit to UK amid migrant crisis
A state visit by French President Emmanuel Macron got under way outside London on Tuesday, as British royals joined their visitors for the countries' national anthems in the sunlit grounds of Windsor Castle. Artillery fired a 41-gun salute when Mr Macron arrived in Windsor and the President and king later chatted enthusiastically as Household Cavalry made their way down the road and the open-top carriages arrived. Charles led Mr Macron into the landau and chuckled as they chatted while taking their seats. Mr Macron will address parliament and attend a state dinner before the political side of the three-day visit comes to the fore. In his meetings with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the relationship between the countries will be boosted if there is a deal to tackle migrant crossings over the Channel. A British government spokesman said the UK's 'joint work with the French is stronger than it has ever been'. The state visit, hosted by Charles and Queen Camilla, is the first French state visit to the UK in 17 years, when the now disgraced former French leader Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in 2008. Mr Macron's trip marks the first ceremonial visit to the UK by an EU head of state since Brexit and the first to be staged at Windsor Castle in 11 years. 'That relationship is key to a number of issues and we expect to make good progress on a wide range of priorities, including migration, growth, defence and security, which will deliver on the interests of both the British and the French public," a Downing Street spokesman said. 'We are the first government to have secured agreement from the French to review their maritime tactics so their border enforcement teams can intervene in shallow waters. This is operationally and legally complex, but we're working closely with the French. We expect this to be operationalised soon.' Mr Starmer will host Mr Macron in Downing Street on Wednesday and Thursday. The UK leader will focus on efforts to tackle migration, enhance defence and security co-operation, and boost trade and investment between the countries. Mr Starmer and Mr Macron will be joined by senior government ministers for the 37th UK-France Summit, to be held on Thursday. The leaders will also join an online meeting to discuss increasing support for Ukraine and measures to increase pressure on Russia.
