9 min read59 min

Sir Robert Buckland is concerned that history is repeating itself. “Having been through the process myself as a parent, and having done the Children and Families Act as a backbencher, just before I entered government, I’ve got the scars on my back about all of this, and I’ve seen a lot of this before.”

Twelve years ago, as a backbench Tory MP, the former cabinet minister contributed to what was arguably the biggest shake-up of the education system in a generation, as children’s rights to support for special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) were set out in law under education, health and care plans (EHCPs). More than a decade later, a system introduced to bring greater certainty for young people is in crisis, described by the National Audit Office as “financially unsustainable”, and coming under increasing strain as families fight for the support they need.

For Buckland, this situation is personal. Like millions of parents up and down the country, he has battled through a process that often feels like it is working against families rather than with them. His daughter Millie, now 23, is autistic. She also has learning disabilities and a physical condition (the nature of which Buckland wishes to keep private). Millie is now coming out the other end of an education system that he feels “has been pretty good” in her case, though he acknowledges that “this is not the story of a lot of families, far too often”.

“Without that pushing by me and my wife, I don’t think we would have got to where we were so quickly. And that’s wrong.”

The journey to Millie’s diagnosis was far from smooth. “You find, to begin with, the system is sort of designed to minimise and to say: ‘Don’t worry, it’ll all come out in the wash.’ And we got a lot of that, right up to about the age of two-and-a-half, three, when clearly she was missing all her milestones.”

For Buckland and his wife, it was plain to see. Millie, born a twin, was missing all of the milestones that her brother was hitting. In the end, the family put together the money and went privately to get a diagnosis. But even that was not easy: “[It was] particularly complicated because, in those days, there were many fewer diagnoses for girls and women with autism. It was much rarer.”

Buckland, 57, a lawyer by trade, was first elected in 2010. He was a Conservative MP for 14 years, during which he held the roles of solicitor general, prisons minister, justice secretary and Welsh secretary before losing his seat to Labour in 2024. Most recently, he was appointed to lead an independent review into state failings before the murder of the MP David Amess.

Now outside of the House of Commons, the former Conservative politician has watched the government’s SEND announcements unfold with special interest.

In February, the government finally published its plans to reform the system. Under the proposals, only those children with the most severe and complex needs will receive an EHCP. Instead, the government will expect most pupils with SEND to be educated in mainstream schools with an individual support plan (ISP).

Six months ago, it was difficult to see how Labour could successfully land its reforms. PoliticsHome reported in September that the white paper setting out the proposals was likely to be delayed until 2026. It was understood that the Department for Education (DfE) and the Treasury had settled on a funding settlement for SEND reforms earlier in 2025, but the welfare rebellion forced the government to look again at what it was preparing to put before Labour MPs.

Buckland is concerned that under the government’s proposed changes to the SEND system, it will be those children with the most severe and complex needs who will fall through the cracks.

While speaking with The House, he gestures frequently, sometimes with irritation and often in relation to the 120 pages of the white paper he has meticulously printed out. He refers to notes throughout: he has a number of clear points he wishes to make.

Today, while Buckland praises the government for its deft political manoeuvring in landing the reforms, he is certain there are “hidden explosives” in the proposals – including over what will happen to the special schools for the most acute end of the spectrum.

If it doesn’t work at a local level, all this rhetoric is just rhetoric, and we’ll come back in 10 years’ time and go, ‘We missed an opportunity with those reforms’

While he was pleased to see Health Secretary Wes Streeting appear alongside Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in the foreword of the white paper, Buckland laments the lack of involvement of other departments, as he would like to see more joined-up thinking.

These aren’t his only concerns. While he agrees with the inclusive approach of a “universal offer” in principle, and understands the wish to move away from the EHCP as the sole funnel, he is worried that the replacement just “isn’t as strong”. While Buckland feels that Millie’s needs are acute enough that she would still receive an EHCP under the new system, he worries that there are many other youngsters who will have needs that are significant but not acute, who won’t get near that process”.

He is willing to be proved wrong: “If the new ISPs genuinely work, great. I’ll be the first in the queue to say well done. But without the training and the resources to make the words [into] action, you’re going to end up with the same problem. Some parents are still going to say, ‘that’s not been enough’.”

Currently, parents can apply to a local tribunal to seek support for their child if they are unhappy with the approach. Under the new system, the tribunal will still exist, but its role will be more limited, with concerns from parents over the ISPs going through the school complaints system. Buckland says this could be a “real problem”.

“Some parents might say: ‘Well, the complaint system has failed us, do we resort then to law anyway? Do we try and seek a judicial review, or whatever it might be?’ Do you find another means in, and do you actually create more uncertainty and more wrangling?”

It is understood that parents will still be able to appeal to the tribunal regarding whether their child should be assessed for an EHCP and around the child’s place in a school. He nonetheless warns: “There is a particular cohort of youngsters, a small cohort, but very, very resource-intensive, that could really fall through the net again if we’re not careful.”

While Buckland acknowledges that the planned proposals allow time for embedding change in the system, he doesn’t think the lag is long enough “if they’re really going to scale up the workforce in the way that they say they are”.

He is worried that the same mistakes that were made in 2014 could be repeated, urging Parliament to look “beyond the black letter of the legislation and look to the actual reality on the ground” and make sure that “all parts of the system are really ready for the changes”.

Buckland also believes that the pressure on schools to deliver on the reforms could be acute.

“I trust schools and academies to get it right, but it is also quite a challenge for them when they’ve got workforce issues, they’ve got resource issues, and they’re being asked to deliver more and more at a school level.”

This is an issue many in the schools sector are alive to, specifically the NEU teaching union, The House points out.

“For once, I agree with them,” Buckland says. “If it doesn’t work at a local level, all this rhetoric is just rhetoric, and we’ll come back in 10 years’ time and go, ‘We missed an opportunity with those reforms.’”

Whatever your political colour, it was clear by 2024 that the SEND system was not working. In 2023, the-then education secretary Gillian Keegan infamously described the system as “lose, lose, lose”.

How does Buckland reflect on the 2014 reforms now?

“I’ve no regrets about the bill.” But he admits: “We were probably all a little bit too dewy-eyed about the fact that the legislation has been passed, therefore everything would change.”

Reflecting on his own experience of the system, Buckland says he can remember the annual reviews for Millie’s EHCP did not always meet expectations, and the “good intention behind the reforms was not fully carried out in practice”.

“You want health in the room, but so often they wouldn’t turn up. And I can remember saying, I don’t think we can agree anything until we’ve got a health representative here to actually sign off on the plan that is needed for Millie if there was an emergency.”

As the number of young people with SEND support has increased, so has the narrative around a perceived overdiagnosis epidemic. Last year, Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice prompted outrage from some quarters when he claimed there was a “colossal overdiagnosis going on in neurodiverse areas such as ADHD, dyspraxia and dyslexia”. Former Ofsted boss Baroness Spielman has also lamented a world of overdiagnosis.

While Buckland is generally softly spoken and calm, this is one topic that makes him visibly incensed.

“Those politicians who bleat on about overdiagnosis – they literally don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re one step away from Robert Kennedy in the US, in my opinion,” he says, referring to RFK Jr, the US health secretary who promotes conspiracy theories, “because this sort of narrative is very damaging, not just to wider society, but to the individuals and families concerned.

“I don’t know any parent of an autistic child that says: ‘I really want a diagnosis because, I know it’s an exaggeration, but I want the diagnosis just to feel better.’ You want the diagnosis, a) so that the full needs of your child are understood, and b) of course, you want those statutory duties.”

Leader of the opposition Kemi Badenoch has also faced criticism for suggesting there is an “overdiagnosis” of mental health conditions and saying those with an autism diagnosis get “economic advantages and protections”.

Buckland is careful not to criticise Badenoch, but does say: “Do I think that they’re in a privileged position? No, it’s all about trying to make sure that people with that condition have access to the same mainstream facilities the rest of us do.” And he thinks the narrative of overdiagnosis is “deeply insulting”.

“As far as I’m concerned, it’s not the job of ill-informed politicians to sit there in judgment. It’s the job of all of us to try and devise a system that doesn’t create perverse incentives, but which genuinely understands the child before them.”