A “genuine crisis” in funding for young people with special educational needs could “blight their lives forever”, the High Court has heard.
Lawyers representing three families who are bringing a landmark legal challenge against the Government said funding intended to support those with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) was “manifestly insufficient”.
Jenni Richards QC, for the families, told the court during a hearing on Wednesday that there was “clear and incontrovertible evidence” of a “substantial national shortfall” in funding.
In written submissions, she said: “The evidence strongly supports the contention that there is a genuine crisis in Send funding.
“Importantly, it is not the case that the shortfalls in funding are currently being absorbed by local authorities with relatively little impact on front-line provision.
“On the contrary, the direct result of the lack of funding is that children with Send are not being properly educated, notwithstanding the fact that Parliament has required their needs to be met.
“This has the potential to blight the lives of these children forever, seriously limiting the scope for them living independent lives as adults.”
She added: “The critical under-funding … means that the most vulnerable children may not even receive the basic educational provision they require.”
The case is being brought by three children on behalf of all young people in England and Wales who rely on Send funding.
The three, who are acting through their mothers, are 15-year-old Nico Heugh Simone, from Robertsbridge, East Sussex; nine-year-old Dakota Riddell, of Birmingham, west Midlands; and 14-year-old Benedict McFinnigan, from Scarborough, North Yorkshire.
During Ms Richards’s opening remarks, Mr Justice Lewis said: “Their mothers are doing an amazing job, quite frankly, when you read what they are doing on a day-to-day basis.”
The families say the Government’s approach to funding Send is unlawful and are bringing a case against Chancellor Philip Hammond and Education Secretary Damian Hinds.
Ms Richards argued that Mr Hammond acted unlawfully when setting the national budget in October 2018, and that Mr Hinds did so when making available additional, but “manifestly insufficient”, Send funding in December 2018.
She told Mr Justice Lewis, who is hearing the case, they did not take enough account of the “nature and extent of the crisis” in Send funding when making those decisions.
The barrister added: “There is no evidence that the defendants have ever asked themselves whether Send funding is sufficient to allow local authorities and schools to comply with their statutory duties and meet the needs of this particularly vulnerable cohort of children and young people, whereas all the evidence … says it is not.”
Ms Richards said Department for Education statistics showed a “rising demand” for Send funding, which had “not been matched by anything like a commensurate increase in funding”.
She said the figures showed there were 25,540 young people aged 16-25 in January 2015 with a statement or Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, which had increased to 84,260 by January 2018.
Government lawyers said the increase in demand was recognised by the ministers and that Mr Hinds had “made it clear” that High Needs would be one of his priorities ahead of the 2019 Spending Review.
Sir James Eadie QC, representing the ministers, said Mr Hammond had “consistently given careful consideration and appropriate weight” to the situation, but that his focus was on “competing and pressing” calls for the “scarce resource” of Government funding.
He added: “These decisions have been taken in full knowledge of the challenges faced by local authorities identified above.
“In addition, they have been taken in the context of a complex policy area – school funding – which requires the Secretary of State (for Education) to make difficult decisions balancing competing priorities.
“As noted, decisions by the Chancellor are still more multi-faceted, requiring needs in this policy area to be balanced against those in many others, against the background of a finite pool of Government resources.”
The families bringing the case are seeking a declaration that the Government’s approach to Send funding is “unlawful”, which they say will force the Government to consider increasing the amount made available.
They are supported by campaign network Send Action, which held a demonstration outside the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of the hearing, as well as charities Mencap and the National Deaf Childrens’ Society (NDCS).
The case will be heard over two days, following which Mr Justice Lewis is expected to reserve judgment to a later date.
The High Court previously rejected cases brought by families of children with special educational needs against Hackney and Surrey councils.
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?