To think government ministers shouldn't condone lawbreaking?

[Ceto]

twitter.com/nonsocucinare/status/869999250884632576

Philip Hammond apparently told a public meeting that the Conservatives know local authorities regularly break the law in relation to provision for children with SEN and disabilities, but it's OK because they have to take hard decisions to keep within budgets. Yes, that would be the limited budgets which have been cut by the government.

AIBU to think this is absolutely scandalous? Is there any point at all in having laws when the government is happy to go public on the fact that it will turn a blind eye to law breaking if it suits their agenda? And the fact that the victims of all this are disabled children simply adds insult to injury.

Is there any point at all in having laws when the government is happy to go public on the fact that it will turn a blind eye to law breaking if it suits their agenda?

The UK government has been known to break a law or two itself.

www.newscientist.com/article/2133222-uk-government-to-be-taken-back-to-court-again-over-air-pollution/

Appalling.

Although I am amazed that he is admitting that LA's are failing in their legal duties towards SEN and disabled children as a direct result of government cuts.

Do you have an actual quote?

The source is that Tweet, though the person posting it has also reported on Facebook - I can't link it as it's in a closed group - and it has been confirmed by someone else who was there.

I thought this was going to be about Control Orders.

Though I suppose most of those involved in that biit of unlawful activity by the Government are unlikely ever to see high office again.

Article on this here - senanonymous.wordpress.com/2017/06/01/sen-discrimination/

Again, not a quote, just a 'heard'

So what, caroldecker? It's something he said witnessed by hundreds of people.

Well not really. he said something that has been interpreted by one person and shared.
he may have said 'UK schools ignore the law on SEN to balance budgets. These are difficult decisions that have to be made and the school is responsible for making them' which means he condones this, which is wrong.
He may have said ' schools have difficult decisions to make on budgets and they don't always follow the law for SEN. This is wrong and i will investigate any information sent to me' which is right and proper.
Basically, we have one tweet,form a biased source, which has been picked up by you and the author of your link.

YANBU. It is scandalous, we've been on the recieving end of it for years, took over a year to produce an ehcp that legally should have been produced within 16 weeks, no proper co production, no real needs assessment, ignoring reports, saying that they can't use a private report even though they told us to get the report done because the school was in a different NHS trust area to ours, being lied to was the least of our worries.

Statement not being adhered to, illegal exclusions, blatant discrimination.

caroldecker, since he wasn't asked about schools he didn't mention them. And the original reporter has been backed up by a number of people who were there.

If you don't accept that this was said, what is your view about the fact that local authorities regularly disobey the law on education and care provision for children with disabilities, the government had the chance with the Children and Families Act to remedy this but chose not to do so, and it continues not to do anything to enforce LA duties? What do you think their motivation might be?

I agree local authorities should not break the law. I don't know the details of the opportunity to remedy, but a new law does not help if the old law exists and is being broken.
Any government should support the law, hence wanting to know exactly what he said.
If he wasn't asked about schools and didn't mention them, then what did he comment on about SEN provision and LA's?

"I agree local authorities should not break the law."

Increasingly, they may not have the choice. Once centralised government funding to councils has been eliminated, some local authorities (who do not have the ability to raise enough funds locally) will find their budgets so reduced that they will not be able to pay for the services they are legally obliged to provide. No mater how much "wastage" they eliminate, and no matter how much they cut staff pay, they can only stretch the money so far before something has to give.

They could have remedied the situation simply by building in penalties into the Children and Families Act. However, the reality would appear to be that they knew full well that they weren't going to fund the system sufficiently to make it work and essentially the Act was cynical window-dressing.

What he was asked about was local authority failures to comply with their duties in terms of SEN provision.