SEND reform cannot wait – and neither can fiscal reality

Political consensus is an unusually rare commodity these days, but there does seem to be unanimous agreement that the present system for helping children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) needs radical reform. Aspects of the current regime are grotesque, if not cruel, and have inflicted great distress on children, parents, teachers and everyone else involved. It is a major concern at every level of the state.

The process by which a family can obtain a legally enforceable EHCP (education, health and care plan) can be arduous and can end up in expensive litigation. This is not only absurd but dehumanising. Responsibility for running and funding the system is illogically diffused across schools and colleges, local authorities, the NHS and the Treasury. It is also increasingly expensive.

Because of the increase in the number of children being diagnosed with SEND, and the rising costs of transporting, caring for and educating them, the sums haphazardly allocated by schools, councils and the Treasury are being turbocharged. According to think tank Policy Exchange, spending on SEND has increased by more than 50 per cent in six years and will reach some £18.2bn annually by 2028 – about the same as the entire NHS drugs budget.

This uncapped, legally obliged, non-discretionary spending has put intense pressure on local authority budgets, leading many to run up large “SEND deficits” and crowding out money for services such as roads, refuse collections and libraries. Some councils are being pushed towards bankruptcy. Such is the scale of this crisis that central government is already making special grants to councils and will assume total responsibility for funding in 2028. But rationalising budgets will not, in itself, constrain them.

All agree that this unworkable system must change. The challenge facing the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is formidable. At a time of slow economic growth and public frustration over the tax burden, she must protect children and parents while safeguarding the public finances and the wider education system.

Given mounting demands on health and social security from an ageing population – living longer but often in poorer health – this is one of the most difficult tasks confronting any minister. Yet it is vital to this government’s success that welfare spending is made affordable in a way that commands broad public support. The defeats suffered last year on welfare reform do not augur well for Ms Phillipson’s chances; and the Labour government, almost literally, cannot afford another disastrous U-turn forced by its own backbenchers.

Given the sensitivities involved, and the genuine fears of hard-pressed parents, Ms Phillipson is right to proceed cautiously. The crisis is acute, which makes it all the more important to get reform “right first time” – something the government has not always managed.

Her starting point is the education white paper, outlining broad proposals rather than hard-edged legislation. This first phase is, essentially, a consultation. It allows critical questions to be asked and anxieties aired.

So far, Ms Phillipson has declined to say whether any child currently receiving support would lose it under the proposals. She does, however, promise “effective support” and insists that, under the new system, more children will receive help – more quickly, and at the point of need. Parents, she says, will not have to fight so hard for an EHCP. The transition, she argues, will take a decade, and more money will be spent on SEND.

This does not amount to a radical cost-cutting agenda – nor, given the vulnerability of the children concerned, would that necessarily be desirable. But what is essential is that the sharply upward trajectory of SEND spending is brought under control and placed on a politically and economically sustainable path. The same applies to the wider social security budget, which includes the state pension – accounting for just over half of the current £334bn annual total.

In that context, Ms Phillipson and her health colleague, Wes Streeting, should revisit the vexed issue of over-diagnosis in certain mental health conditions, to ensure that policy rests on an accurate assessment of need and retains taxpayer confidence. She might also gently examine the feasibility of means-testing certain elements of the system – for example, transport costs for pupils sent by local authorities to fee-paying schools, as some county councils have suggested.

At least Ms Phillipson is clear on one point: doing nothing is not an option. The task ahead will be a long one. But if SEND policy is to be fair, humane and financially sustainable in a world of finite resources, that struggle cannot be avoided.