Parents fear SEND tribunal rights are being gutted as ministers refuse to give clear answers
Eduardo Reyes returns to SEND coverage after losing his 17-year-old daughter in February. What he finds disturbs him: Ministers dodging, redefining, and obscuring questions about children’s legal rights with vague, evasive language.
For families of children with special educational needs and disabilities, the ability to enforce legal rights through tribunals has long been a lifeline. But Whitehall’s recent statements have sparked fears that those protections may be quietly dismantled.
When the Gazette reported that the government was considering scrapping the SEND Tribunal, officials denied it. But Reyes, having contacted both the Ministry of Justice and Department for Education directly, found no concrete assurances. His precise questions — whether the government planned to limit eligibility, restrict appealable issues, remove EHCPs or change councils’ legal duties — went unanswered.
Instead, the DfE issued a carefully worded response: it denied tribunal abolition but refused to confirm the future of the EHCP legal framework. They spoke of “early intervention,” “collaboration,” and “protecting provision currently in place” — ambiguous phrases that mean little without commitment to enforceable rights.
On 1 July, school standards minister Catherine McKinnell appeared before the education select committee. She would not confirm that all current legal entitlements would remain. Instead, she spoke only of retaining “effective” support, a shift from earlier claims of protecting all provision. Pressed repeatedly, she admitted there was no “100% guarantee of continuity.”
Parents noticed. An online petition demanding SEND legal rights be retained surged past 100,000 signatures within hours, triggering a parliamentary debate. Yet officials continued to speak in riddles. Written answers, oral statements and ministerial appearances all avoided saying whether children’s statutory rights would survive reform.
Embed from Getty ImagesMcKinnell’s language was evasive: she emphasised reducing reliance on tribunals through “collaborative redress,” implying a shift toward mediation — and away from enforceable law. Yet tribunals rule in favour of families in over 96% of cases. Their removal would not simplify the system. It would silence children and parents.
Campaigners fear policy is being shaped behind the scenes. A recent report commissioned by the Local Government Association proposed replacing tribunals with school governor reviews and ombudsman appeals. While the DfE disowns the report, it hasn’t ruled out adopting any of its ideas.
Many new MPs are former councillors, sympathetic to the LGA’s view that legal rights are a financial burden. The prevailing narrative in Whitehall now frames parents seeking support as “demanding” and “unreasonable”, while councils blame the law for costs — not their own failings.
SEND rights were not born in the 2014 Children and Families Act, as some suggest, but developed over decades. The current government, like others before it, has the power to preserve those rights. It simply refuses to say whether it will.
Reyes notes that evasiveness itself is revealing. Ministers claim the system must change — but refuse to provide evidence that courts are making poor decisions or that children are receiving unneeded support. The system may be complex, but that complexity stems from councils resisting lawful provision, not overreach by parents.
To reduce tribunal cases, councils must comply with existing law — not weaken it. Legal rights exist for a reason. Like habeas corpus, most people never need them — but their existence protects everyone.
