Whatever else may be said about the government’s plans for the education of children with special needs, they cannot be handled in the same, calamitous way as were the reforms to personal independence payments (PIP). As has been said with enormous force during the low-key commemoration of Labour’s first year in office, lessons must be learnt.
The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is the lead minister in preparing the schools white paper in October, which will include proposals for changes to the special needs framework. She has already caused some concern by refusing to rule out changing the system of education, health and care plans (EHCPs), and the rights groups and backbench MPs in her party have mobilised in response.
In fairness, Ms Phillipson and her colleagues have talked about changes to EHCPs in the past. However, the recent welfare reform bill fiasco has both sharpened anxieties and bolstered the confidence of Labour backbenchers that they can defy the party leadership and block reform. The Labour general election manifesto was also oblique on this point.
An element of fear, if not paranoia, has entered the debate, and Ms Phillipson’s task has been much more difficult because of the mistakes made by her colleagues – Rachel Reeves as chancellor, Liz Kendall as work and pensions secretary, and the prime minister, Sir Keir Starmer.
Ms Phillipson is one of the brighter stars in the Labour firmament, but she will be fortunate if she emerges from this process with an improved EHCP regime or her reputation enhanced. Trust has been eroded.
For any government of any party, reforming the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision for children and young people presents particular challenges, and rightly so. These are among the most vulnerable of people, and they cannot be subject to discriminatory treatment, both as a matter of law and of morality. As a society, there is a duty to provide for children and young people with physical and learning disabilities, and to offer them the best start in life, maximising their independence and life chances.
Their parents need and deserve support, and any failure to do so is unconscionable. In contrast to the PIP reforms, there must be no feeling that reform is solely or even primarily driven by the Treasury and the need for savings, though there is no escaping the financial realities. As Ms Reeves and Ms Kendall discovered to their cost, there are red lines that this generation of Labour MPs will not cross solely for the sake of meeting fiscal rules.
Ms Phillipson, therefore, must win the arguments – and, as far as possible, carry all those concerned with her as she reshapes the regime and improves it. Therefore, the various groups representing SEND children and parents need to be closely involved in each stage of policy development.
This is something she is now well placed to do, given recent events. In any case, because of what happened with PIP entitlements, she has no alternative. The parliamentary Labour Party, emboldened as it now is, will insist on being consulted. When the time comes to publish the white paper, there should be no nasty surprises. If there are, it will be just as doomed as the welfare reform bill.
Secondly, this process cannot be rushed, or perceived to be rushed. The deadline of October for the schools white paper is a reasonable one but it should not take precedence over good policy. If the sections on SEND are not ready to be published, then they should be postponed. Indeed, there is a strong case for giving SEND policy a comprehensive study and white paper of its own, given the sensitivities and complexities involved. Again, the lesson of recent events is that a late policy is preferable to a bad policy.
There is also a real need for a better understanding – entirely separate from the cost – of the merits of special schools or children’s inclusion in the general school system, which will, of course, vary by individual cases. It is also wrong, as seems to be the case now, that variations in provision across different local authorities can be so stark – a postcode lottery.
Thirdly, there does have to be some cognisance of the financial trends: why they are happening and how they will evolve. These are not all well understood even by the experts. Many more children are being given statutory rights under their hard-won EHCPs, but the reasons for the sharp increase of some 70 per cent in less than a decade are less transparent. Next year, the projected annual cost of support for children with learning difficulties or disabilities is set to reach £12bn.
The system of finance also needs to be changed. At the moment, the costs of statutory SEND obligations are met by school managements and local authorities in the first instance, and they tend to squeeze other important, albeit less vital, priorities. This will put local councils into a large cumulative deficit of £8bn by 2027, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In other words, more councils will go bust, which helps no one. It would be far more satisfactory if there were a national system of SEND funding based on consistent criteria.
Finally – and, again, drawing on an important lesson – the system for SEND and EHCPs should be founded on a cross-party consensus. This, admittedly, is unlikely, but for obvious reasons it would help children and parents, as well as schools and local authorities, to plan ahead and avoid stigmatisation if those with special needs were “weaponised” for political advantage. That may prove beyond Ms Phillipson’s abilities, but she must surely know that she and her government cannot afford another such debacle.
This time around, unlike Ms Kendall, she can remind Sir Keir and Ms Reeves of certain political realities.
