Why Keir Starmer could face a fresh rebellion over disability support for Send children?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
11 minutes ago
- Sky News
HMRC 'doesn't know' how many billionaires pay tax in the UK
HM Revenue and Customs does not know how many billionaires pay tax in the UK, according to a new report by MPs. The Public Accounts Committee says this is despite the fact only a small number of people have this status - and the significant sums of money involved. HMRC has been told it "can and must" do more to understand how much the very wealthiest in society contribute to the public purse, as "there is a lot of money being left on the table". 6:36 Artificial intelligence and The Sunday Times Rich List were identified as two ways of getting a clearer picture. The taxman is facing calls to reveal how it plans to increase contributions from billionaires both domestically and offshore, amid a squeeze in the public finances. MPs added: "There is much public interest in the amount of tax the wealthy pay. People need to know everyone pays their fair share." The report pointed to the US, where the Internal Revenue Service links its data to the Forbes 400 list of rich Americans. PAC member Lloyd Hatton added: "This report is not concerned with political debate around the redistribution of wealth. "Our committee's role is to help HMRC do its job properly, ensuring wealthy people pay the correct tax. "While HMRC does deserve some great credit for securing billions more in the tax take from the wealthiest in recent years, there is still a very long way to go before we can reach a true accounting of what is owed." 1:16 Mr Hatton added that the committee was "disappointed" that HMRC could not offer any insights into the tax arrangements of billionaires from its own data - as "any single one of these individuals' contributions could make a significant difference to the overall picture". At present, about 1,000 people within HMRC are focused on the tax affairs of the UK's wealthiest, but funding has been secured to increase this headcount by 400 - with a view to "increasing prosecutions of those who evade tax". A spokesperson added: "The government is determined to make sure everyone pays the tax they owe. "Extra resources were announced in the recent spending review which allows us to significantly step up our work on closing the tax gap among the wealthiest."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How the BBC got into a mess over Gaza
On Monday, the BBC released its long-awaited report into its decision to remove the documentary Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone from its platforms. The report determined that not making viewers aware of the fact that the narrator's father was a member of the Hamas-run government of Gaza constituted a breach of its editorial policies, specifically on accuracy. However, the documentary was not found to have breached guidelines on impartiality. As the Guardian's media editor Michael Savage tells Helen Pidd, the release of this report has come after a particularly intense period for the BBC, in which its handling of the war in Gaza has been heavily criticised. In response to the resignation of Gary Lineker, its coverage of Glastonbury performers, and its decision not to broadcast certain documentaries, the BBC has faced heightened criticism from many sides in the conflict. The pair discuss how the Labour government is approaching the BBC, the shrinking number of licence fee subscribers, and whether this string of controversies will change the way the corporation approaches more sensitive issues. Support the Guardian today:
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Gagging order to cover up Afghan leak must never be used again
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a scramble to flee from Kabul airport WAKIL KOHSAR/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES T hat legal abomination, the superinjunction, is traditionally regarded as the last resort of the desperate celebrity attempting to conceal compromising information. It is a draconian device that not only prohibits the media from reporting a court case — an injunction — but prevents the world from knowing that such an injunction even exists (the 'super' bit). It is intended not so much to stifle legitimate journalistic scrutiny of a court hearing as to smother it. The blanket of secrecy a superinjunction confers means that cases involving serious misconduct by individuals and institutions can go unnoticed by the outside world for months or years, or possibly for ever. Disclosing its very existence can land one in jail. When the party seeking to conceal their actions for this length of time is the government, and when the parties being kept in the dark are the public and parliament, it risks becoming a tool of authoritarianism. Yet that is exactly what has occurred in a case revealed by this newspaper. One in which a military data breach that placed tens of thousands of Afghans in jeopardy, and resulted in a covert rescue and resettlement programme potentially costing £7 billion, being hidden for two years in what the judge finally lifting the order called a vacuum of scrutiny. It is the first time a British government has used a superinjunction in this way and it must be the last. In observing its terms, in place for so much longer than intended, ministers misled parliament, if largely by omission, concealing from relevant committees and the Commons as a whole a scandal that should have resulted in heads rolling down Whitehall. It concerned the unauthorised release in February 2022 of a Ministry of Defence database containing the names of tens of thousands of Afghans at risk of retribution from the restored Taliban regime. The list was transmitted by a soldier at a special forces barracks in London to Afghan contacts in Britain as he attempted to verify applications for sanctuary in Britain. The list subsequently found its way to Afghanistan. • Did the risk ever justify the secrecy in this Kafkaesque calamity? When one of the individuals it was passed to threatened to publish it on Facebook it became a potential death warrant for many of those named, and possibly their relatives. As a result, the then Conservative government decided to relocate thousands of Afghans, adults and children, to Britain in a covert programme that was later endorsed by the current Labour government. Incredibly, the existence of this operation, involving some 23,000 people, was kept secret even from the discreet Commons intelligence and security committee. The superinjunction was granted in September 2023, supposedly as a four-month measure to help cloak a rescue. But it would last for almost two years, the MoD continuing to insist that it was necessary to save lives, though there was a possibility that the database had already fallen into the possession of the Taliban. Whatever the reality of this, the superinjunction continued to act as a shield for official incompetence. Due to the continuing secrecy surrounding this fiasco it is not known who, if anyone, was disciplined for the breach. What is clear is the disquiet of a High Court judge involved in hearings in which The Times and Daily Mail sought to have details of the scandal released. At one point Mr Justice Chamberlain warned that it could be perceived as censorship. Concerns were also raised that the government was using the gagging order to control the narrative surrounding the scandal. Unfortunately, he was overruled by a court of appeal again swayed by MoD warnings of potential disaster. Now, those objections have evaporated, the risks apparently being overstated according to a review. So much for parliamentary and press oversight. In terms of free speech the superinjunction is a weapon of mass destruction. No government should be allowed to employ one again.
