Starmer faces Labour pushback over SEND reform plans
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said the government was committed to reforming the current system, which costs £12 billion a year.
Starmer is facing a Labour backbench revolt over plans to reform special needs support in schools without guaranteeing existing legal rights. (Photo: Getty Images)
Vivek Mishra works as an Assistant Editor with Eastern Eye and has over 13 years of experience in journalism. His areas of interest include politics, international affairs, current events, and sports. With a background in newsroom operations and editorial planning, he has reported and edited stories on major national and global developments.
KEIR STARMER is facing a backlash from Labour MPs over plans to reform special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) support, after ministers stopped short of guaranteeing legal rights for parents.
Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said the government was committed to reforming the current system, which costs £12 billion a year. However, she did not confirm if legally enforceable rights, such as those provided by education, health and care plans (EHCPs), would remain.
Early education minister Stephen Morgan told Times Radio: “We want to make sure that every child gets the support that they need,” but did not rule out changes to current entitlements.
Senior Labour MPs told The Times the plans risk repeating mistakes from past welfare reforms. “We’re all in favour of reforming the system but that cannot be driven by saving money and taking support away from children,” one MP said.
The government’s proposals, expected in the autumn, focus on early intervention and better support in mainstream schools. Ministers say the aim is not to cut costs but to improve outcomes. They have pledged £750 million for new specialist facilities and over £1 billion for high needs budgets.
Campaigners say EHCPs remain essential for securing support. Celebrities and groups including the National Autistic Society warned in The Guardian: “Without statutory support, underpinned by necessary extra resources for schools, it’s extremely unlikely that ministers will achieve their aim.”
Phillipson told the BBC the current system was “too adversarial” and “too bureaucratic,” adding: “We need to just take a step back and think about how do we build a better system.”
Dr Malhotra, an advisor to US health secretary Robert F Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Action, also serves as Chief Medical Advisor to Make Europe Healthy Again, where he campaigns for wider access to vaccine information.
Dr Aseem Malhotra, a British Asian cardiologist, and research psychologist Dr Andrea Lamont Nazarenko have called on medical bodies to issue public apologies over Covid vaccine mandates, saying they have contributed to public distrust and conspiracy theories.
In a commentary published in the peer-reviewed journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, the two argue that public health authorities must address the shortcomings of Covid-era policies and acknowledge mistakes.
They note that while early pandemic decisions were based on the best available evidence, that justification cannot continue indefinitely.
“Until the most urgent questions are answered, nothing less than a global moratorium on Covid-19 mRNA vaccines — coupled with formal, unequivocal apologies from governments and medical bodies for mandates and for silencing truth seekers — will suffice,” they write.
Dr Malhotra, an advisor to US health secretary Robert F Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Action, also serves as Chief Medical Advisor to Make Europe Healthy Again, where he campaigns for wider access to vaccine information.
In the article titled Mandates and Lack of Transparency on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety has Fuelled Distrust – An Apology to Patients is Long Overdue, the authors write that science must remain central to public health.
“The pandemic demonstrated that when scientific integrity is lacking and dissent is suppressed, unethical decision-making can become legitimised. When this happens, public confidence in health authorities erodes,” they write.
They add: “The role of public health is not to override individual clinical judgment or the ethics that govern medical decision-making. This is essential because what once appeared self-evident can, on further testing, prove false – and what may appear to be ‘safe and effective’ for one individual may be harmful to another.”
The article has been welcomed by international medical experts who say rebuilding trust in public health institutions is essential.
“It might be impossible to go back in time and correct these major public health failings, which included support of futile and damaging vaccine mandates and lockdowns and provision of unsupported false and misleading claims regarding knowledge of vaccine efficacy and safety, but to start rebuilding public confidence in health authorities (is) the starting point,” said Dr Nikolai Petrovsky, Professor of Immunology and Infectious Disease, Australian Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Institute, Adelaide.
“This article is a scholarly and timely review of the public health principles that have been so clearly ignored and traduced. Without a complete apology and explanation we are doomed to pay the price for failure to take up the few vaccines that make a highly significant contribution to public health,” added Angus Dalgleish, Emeritus Professor of Oncology, St George’s University Hospital, UK.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.