logo
Labour owes it to special needs children to reform SEND

Labour owes it to special needs children to reform SEND

Spectator8 hours ago
They say that history repeats itself, but the Labour party won't be expecting it to happen quite so quickly. Last week, a 'Starmtrooper' rebellion forced the government to make a series of last-minute concessions and compromises on its welfare bill for fear of a humiliating defeat in the House of Commons.
Now, Labour is facing a similar battle, but this time over special educational needs (SEND) provision. MPs are criticising ministers' refusals to rule out cuts as part of its SEND overhaul, the details of which will be unveiled in the autumn. As one Labour MP warned, 'if they thought taking money away from disabled adults was bad, watch what happens when they try the same with disabled kids.'
These children risk becoming trapped in a cycle of dependency
As with the welfare system, special education needs provision has become an unmanageable behemoth. Around 1.67 million pupils in England have SEND – 18.4 percent of the school population, and a 31 per cent increase since 2016. Around 576,000 children also have an EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan): a legally binding document, replacing the old system of 'statements', which entitles students to specialist support, paid for by local authorities.
EHCPs are designed for students with the most severe needs, but the last decade has seen an astronomic rise in applicants – there are now 140 per cent more EHCPs than there were in 2015, with the total SEND budget costing more than £12 billion a year.
It's easy to see why parents are nervous that the government is considering scrapping EHCPs as part of its reforms: EHCPs provide some statutory certainty in a system that is overstretched and underfunded. Yet the problem is the same one that lies at the heart of so many of our public services: society feels morally obliged to spend on the care, protection and education of those most in need, but we don't actually have the money to do so.
Even when we do increase spending, the outcomes are not always positive: a report from the National Audit Office found that, despite the increase in funding, the system is 'still not delivering better outcomes for children and young people'.
Governments then promise reforms – which rarely mean anything other than spending less money – but MPs clearly do not have the stomach for reality. We saw this with PIP: we spend over £320 billion on welfare, and yet the government could not even successfully shave off £5 billion from the bill.
A similar retreat on SEND reform seems inevitable. As unsustainable as the current system is, preserving the status quo seems more politically palatable than daring to change eligibility criteria.
Yet the government has to find its backbone here. The current system is bankrupting councils: in 2023-4, Kent spent £17 million on assessing and delivering EHCPs, and an eye-watering £70 million transporting children to and from school or medical appointments. The County Councils Network (CCN) projects that the cost of 'free' transport will reach £3.6 billion a year by 2030.
If the financial arguments won't persuade MPs to follow through here, then perhaps the emotional ones will. To put it simply, we need change because the families who most critically need support are not receiving it. Diagnostic inflation means skyrocketing waiting lists and increased competition for limited resources: for example, almost a quarter of families with disabled children now have to wait over a year to see social services.
The numerous stories of people abusing the system – for example, an 8-year-old with 'behavioural difficulties' in Gainsborough who was given daily private cars to and from school despite no formal assessment or diagnosis – must be sickening to hear if you are the parent of a severely disabled child who cannot access vital support.
Our obsession with neurodivergency has backfired on those most in need; I often wonder what parents of severely autistic children, who may never communicate, socialise, or perform basic tasks independently, think of the endless carousel of celebrities who pay for an autism diagnosis to 'understand themselves better'.
The system doesn't work now, but it will be even worse in future. The Department for Work and Pensions predicts that the number of children entitled to disability benefits will rise by a third by 2030 – one of the fastest-growing benefits categories. Only 4 per cent of EHCPs are currently going to children with severe learning disabilities associated with physical incapacity; the vast majority of plans go to children on the autistic spectrum, with the third most common reason being social, emotional and mental health (given to over 130,000 children last year).
These children risk becoming trapped in a cycle of dependency: told that they cannot function independently at school, told that they need support but not actually given it, told that they are too mentally unwell to hold down a job. For once, change needs to be non-negotiable.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes
Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes

North Wales Chronicle

time16 minutes ago

  • North Wales Chronicle

Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes

The Department for Work and Pensions will try to steer the Universal Credit Bill through its final Commons stages, including clause-by-clause scrutiny, on Wednesday. The Bill, if agreed to, would roll out two different rates of benefit for claimants who cannot currently work. It would also freeze the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCW and LCWRA) elements of the benefit until 2030. The PA news agency understands that a 'substantial number' of Labour rebels have agreed to vote to gut the Bill of these reforms, if they can trigger a division. When MPs debated the reforms last week, Government frontbenchers rolled back on their plan to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit, vowing to revisit any proposed changes only after a review by social security minister Sir Stephen Timms. 'The Government for all the goodwill of pulling clause five on Pip, they've lost it over being so stubborn and obstinate over clauses two and three,' Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said. Clause two of the Bill includes a framework for two rates of LCWRA, with claimants who are eligible for the benefit before April 2026 able to claim a higher rate than later applicants. Claimants who are terminally ill or who have severe symptoms of an illness which 'constantly' apply would also be eligible for the higher rate, regardless of when they become eligible. Ms Maskell has proposed a change to the reforms, so that someone who has slipped out of and then back into the LCWRA eligibility criteria either side of April 2026 would still be able to claim the higher rate. Approving this change would be like 'gathering up the crumbs rather than getting the full course meal', she said. Asked what the Government should do to tackle welfare costs, Ms Maskell told the PA news agency: 'We've got to put the early interventions in to take people off this path of ill health. 'We've got quite a sick society at the moment for all the reasons that we know, a broken NHS, you know, social care not being where it should be, and of course long-term Covid. 'All of that is having its impact, and the endemic mental health challenges that people are facing. 'But to then have the confidence that your programme is so good that it's going to get loads of these people into work and employers are going to have to fulfil their obligations in the future hopefully after the Charlie Mayfield report (the Keep Britain Working review) will make those recommendations – all of that, great, as far as it goes. 'But what we can't do is leave those people that can't work in poverty, because they would love to work and earn money, but they can't, so we have to pay for it. 'And therefore the people who've got the good fortune of earning money, whether it's through income or assets, they're the people that are going to have to support a wider society.' Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan proposed gutting the Bill through a series of draft amendments, to strike clause two and cancel the freeze in clause three. He and Ms Maskell were two of 49 MPs who unsuccessfully tried to block the Bill at second reading, when it cleared its first Commons hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Amid fears the Bill had been rushed through Parliament, and referring to the Liberal reformer William Beveridge who published a post-war blueprint for the welfare state in 1942, Mr Duncan-Jordan asked: 'Beveridge didn't design the welfare state on the back of a postage stamp, did he?' Beyond changes to parts of the benefit specifically for people who cannot currently work, the Bill would demand an above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance each year until 2030.

Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes
Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes

Leader Live

timean hour ago

  • Leader Live

Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes

The Department for Work and Pensions will try to steer the Universal Credit Bill through its final Commons stages, including clause-by-clause scrutiny, on Wednesday. The Bill, if agreed to, would roll out two different rates of benefit for claimants who cannot currently work. It would also freeze the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCW and LCWRA) elements of the benefit until 2030. The PA news agency understands that a 'substantial number' of Labour rebels have agreed to vote to gut the Bill of these reforms, if they can trigger a division. When MPs debated the reforms last week, Government frontbenchers rolled back on their plan to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit, vowing to revisit any proposed changes only after a review by social security minister Sir Stephen Timms. 'The Government for all the goodwill of pulling clause five on Pip, they've lost it over being so stubborn and obstinate over clauses two and three,' Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said. Clause two of the Bill includes a framework for two rates of LCWRA, with claimants who are eligible for the benefit before April 2026 able to claim a higher rate than later applicants. Claimants who are terminally ill or who have severe symptoms of an illness which 'constantly' apply would also be eligible for the higher rate, regardless of when they become eligible. Ms Maskell has proposed a change to the reforms, so that someone who has slipped out of and then back into the LCWRA eligibility criteria either side of April 2026 would still be able to claim the higher rate. Approving this change would be like 'gathering up the crumbs rather than getting the full course meal', she said. Asked what the Government should do to tackle welfare costs, Ms Maskell told the PA news agency: 'We've got to put the early interventions in to take people off this path of ill health. 'We've got quite a sick society at the moment for all the reasons that we know, a broken NHS, you know, social care not being where it should be, and of course long-term Covid. 'All of that is having its impact, and the endemic mental health challenges that people are facing. 'But to then have the confidence that your programme is so good that it's going to get loads of these people into work and employers are going to have to fulfil their obligations in the future hopefully after the Charlie Mayfield report (the Keep Britain Working review) will make those recommendations – all of that, great, as far as it goes. 'But what we can't do is leave those people that can't work in poverty, because they would love to work and earn money, but they can't, so we have to pay for it. 'And therefore the people who've got the good fortune of earning money, whether it's through income or assets, they're the people that are going to have to support a wider society.' Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan proposed gutting the Bill through a series of draft amendments, to strike clause two and cancel the freeze in clause three. He and Ms Maskell were two of 49 MPs who unsuccessfully tried to block the Bill at second reading, when it cleared its first Commons hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Amid fears the Bill had been rushed through Parliament, and referring to the Liberal reformer William Beveridge who published a post-war blueprint for the welfare state in 1942, Mr Duncan-Jordan asked: 'Beveridge didn't design the welfare state on the back of a postage stamp, did he?' Beyond changes to parts of the benefit specifically for people who cannot currently work, the Bill would demand an above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance each year until 2030.

Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes
Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes

Glasgow Times

timean hour ago

  • Glasgow Times

Ministers face fresh challenge to welfare reforms in Wednesday votes

The Department for Work and Pensions will try to steer the Universal Credit Bill through its final Commons stages, including clause-by-clause scrutiny, on Wednesday. The Bill, if agreed to, would roll out two different rates of benefit for claimants who cannot currently work. It would also freeze the limited capability for work and work-related activity (LCW and LCWRA) elements of the benefit until 2030. The PA news agency understands that a 'substantial number' of Labour rebels have agreed to vote to gut the Bill of these reforms, if they can trigger a division. When MPs debated the reforms last week, Government frontbenchers rolled back on their plan to reform the separate personal independence payment (Pip) benefit, vowing to revisit any proposed changes only after a review by social security minister Sir Stephen Timms. 'The Government for all the goodwill of pulling clause five on Pip, they've lost it over being so stubborn and obstinate over clauses two and three,' Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell said. Clause two of the Bill includes a framework for two rates of LCWRA, with claimants who are eligible for the benefit before April 2026 able to claim a higher rate than later applicants. Claimants who are terminally ill or who have severe symptoms of an illness which 'constantly' apply would also be eligible for the higher rate, regardless of when they become eligible. Ms Maskell has proposed a change to the reforms, so that someone who has slipped out of and then back into the LCWRA eligibility criteria either side of April 2026 would still be able to claim the higher rate. Approving this change would be like 'gathering up the crumbs rather than getting the full course meal', she said. Asked what the Government should do to tackle welfare costs, Ms Maskell told the PA news agency: 'We've got to put the early interventions in to take people off this path of ill health. 'We've got quite a sick society at the moment for all the reasons that we know, a broken NHS, you know, social care not being where it should be, and of course long-term Covid. 'All of that is having its impact, and the endemic mental health challenges that people are facing. 'But to then have the confidence that your programme is so good that it's going to get loads of these people into work and employers are going to have to fulfil their obligations in the future hopefully after the Charlie Mayfield report (the Keep Britain Working review) will make those recommendations – all of that, great, as far as it goes. 'But what we can't do is leave those people that can't work in poverty, because they would love to work and earn money, but they can't, so we have to pay for it. 'And therefore the people who've got the good fortune of earning money, whether it's through income or assets, they're the people that are going to have to support a wider society.' Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan proposed gutting the Bill through a series of draft amendments, to strike clause two and cancel the freeze in clause three. He and Ms Maskell were two of 49 MPs who unsuccessfully tried to block the Bill at second reading, when it cleared its first Commons hurdle by 335 votes to 260, majority 75. Amid fears the Bill had been rushed through Parliament, and referring to the Liberal reformer William Beveridge who published a post-war blueprint for the welfare state in 1942, Mr Duncan-Jordan asked: 'Beveridge didn't design the welfare state on the back of a postage stamp, did he?' Beyond changes to parts of the benefit specifically for people who cannot currently work, the Bill would demand an above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance each year until 2030.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store