Education secretary Bridget Phillipson faced criticism from the Law Society today for an attack on lawyers who oppose aspects of her proposed changes the legal rights of children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Phillipson said she was unsurprised by criticism of proposed SEND reforms from ‘vested interests’ and lawyers who profit from ‘exploiting parents’.

‘It’s a fundamentally unfair system if parents who’ve got the money to hire lawyers end up getting a better deal than those who don’t,’ she added. ‘But it’s little surprise to me that the vested interests and the lawyers are opposed to change, because they’ve got a lot to lose from this,’ Schools Week reported.

Phillipson’s reforms, set out in a consultation last month, would narrow the scope of SEND Tribunal judgments and restrict the use of education health and care plans.

Read more:

Government SEND reform

Law Society president Mark Evans said: ‘It is important that children are able to secure the support they are entitled to. It is important that when they do not receive that support, they can effectively challenge the state to provide it. And it is important that lawyers can do their jobs without being needlessly criticised by government ministers for daring to support parents fighting to ensure the best for their children.’

Evans added: ‘Lawyers provide a valuable service for the public, providing legal advice and support, and should not be attacked for doing so.’

Last Friday the Gazette asked the Ministry of Justice whether the lord chancellor, David Lammy, would remind colleagues of the importance of not attacking lawyers who are discharging their professional commitments. The MoJ has not replied.

Phillipson’s attack also drew criticism from the charity IPSEA (Independent Provider of Special Education Advice), which provides legal support and information to the families of children with special educational needs.

A spokesperson for IPSEA said: ‘Not all lawyers are opposed to reform because they “have a lot to lose”, but because the proposals risk weakening existing legal entitlements that are essential safeguards for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.’