| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Jun 2009 : Column 292WH—continued
When the complaints appeals committee met on the matter, the parents argued that it had based its decision on misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Anecdotal
evidence indicates that from the outset, the governors were dismissive of the complaint. The complaints appeals committee upheld the original decision of the chair of governors and cited that the original investigation was satisfactorily conducted.
From the outset of this case, there were clear warning signs that serious issues were not being addressed and that the system was not affording protection to the family. The issues included the initial failure to assess the child’s SEN requirements, the actions of the head teacher, the decisions based on misrepresentations, the governors’ attitude towards the complaint throughout the process, the length of time it took to attempt to address those complaints, and, in the end, the failure to address all aspects of the complaint.
The parents of the child were both involved in the education system, so they knew what to expect and the result fell far short of that. How an ordinary parent would have managed against the system I do not know. At that point, I intervened and called a meeting of the parents, senior directors and cabinet members from the local education authority. Only then did the parents begin to get answers to their specific questions, but by that time, the child had moved schools for the sake of his well-being and his education. That is a wholly unsatisfactory situation. With help, it could have been avoided. The matter could have been resolved with the child’s interests being paramount.
This is one of a number of cases that I could talk about, and it provides an insight into the experiences of individual families. I hope that those experiences serve to demonstrate that there are fundamental problems in pursuing complaints through governing bodies.
Let me briefly turn my attention to the systemic failures. The weakness of the current governing body system is that, as lay people, governors do not always have the knowledge, background, or skills to interpret a complex complaint such as that I have outlined. Independent research by the highly respected Joseph Rowntree Foundation has concluded that many school governors lack the time and the expertise to fulfil their role. It says that they are often overwhelmed by the demands placed on them and that a major reform of the system is necessary. It goes on to say that in many instances, governors and teachers may not really understand what they are facing. That is true in the case that I mentioned of the child with special educational needs.
Many people who have suffered in a similar way would agree with the report’s findings. I understand that under section 29 of the Education Act 2002, all governing bodies are required to have in place a procedure to deal with complaints relating to all aspects of the school. However, beyond the governing body’s complaints appeals committee, there does not seem to be a further right of appeal. A ministerial response to one of my parliamentary questions stated:
“The extent to which the governing body has complied with this duty is part of the school’s self evaluation process which underpins the current Ofsted inspection regime.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 1357W.]
Therefore, it is clear that the only safeguard to this in-house process is a visit once every three years by an Ofsted inspector who will seek to validate the school’s evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses.
There appears to be no consideration given to the minimum standards or probity in conduct that parents can expect when they make a complaint about or to the school. Such weaknesses are compounded by there being no alternative process through which parents can make a complaint. If they are dissatisfied with the governing body’s decision, which they believe might rely too much on educational professionals at the school and therefore not necessarily be independent, wherever they turn is a dead end.
Section 160 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 makes provision for Ofsted to investigate certain qualifying complaints from the parents of registered pupils at a school. Unfortunately, such complaints are restricted to those matters in which there is no alternative statutory route other than the schools complaints procedure. That offers no recourse in the case under discussion as complaints must relate to the whole school, and not to an individualised matter.
The local government ombudsman can investigate school admissions and how a local authority has acted but it cannot investigate how a school governing body has acted during an investigation, how the investigation was carried out and whether the child’s interests were paramount throughout. Under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996, any person can complain to the Secretary of State if they believe that the governing body or local authority is acting unreasonably. Once again, the Secretary of State is able to intervene only in limited circumstances, which makes it difficult for parents to believe that their complaints and their child’s interests are paramount.
The combination of a weak governing body and no alternative route for complaint means that education professionals could have a significant influence on the process. I believe that that happened in the case I outlined. The governing body had a co-dependent rather than an independent relationship with the head teacher, to the extent that the governing body did not want to be seen to challenge publicly the authority of the head teacher. However, the head teacher was at the very heart of the complaint, following the failure of teachers to heed warnings over the child’s behaviour and the refusal to bring in an educational psychologist. Ultimately, the head was accused of provoking the actions that resulted in a child’s expulsion from school. Given that outline of the details, how can any parent who complains to a school’s governing body feel reassured that an investigation will be conducted fairly, objectively and unprejudiced by any outside influencing factors?
We need to ask serious questions not only of the governing body, but of the local education authority, which is charged with providing help and support to governors. I am truly encouraged by the provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which is currently before Parliament, for a new parental complaints service to be operated by the local commissioner, and for that to be introduced as a pilot. I very much welcome Ministers’ comments in Committee that statutory guidance on the new complaints system will make it clear that complainants must not suffer discrimination. In the light of this debate, I implore the Minister to consider my local education authority area for the pilot scheme. Whatever the outcome, there must surely be, in this day and age, an independent assessment of the complaint and how it is handled.
The issues that I have highlighted during the debate need serious consideration and action, to ensure that a school’s governing body helps and supports families, and offers them a voice when they need it. I must put on record my absolute respect for the work of governors. They give of their time and have local interests at heart. I encourage them to continue their vital work in their worthwhile roles, but perhaps with a more questioning edge when there is a dispute. I want them to approach such matters with the child’s interests at heart.
There needs to be a greater focus on ensuring that minimum standards are in place so that parents know what they can expect when they make a complaint to a governing body. For example, perhaps a simple place to start would be a clear timetable for the completion of an investigation. I want a system in which parents are assured that they will get a fair and unprejudiced hearing and one in which there is independent support for governing bodies, to ensure that they have the skills and information to deal with complex cases, so as not to disadvantage children. Perhaps they ought to be able to call in experts outwith their local authority to help in such instances. Finally, when parents are dissatisfied with the governing body, there needs to be an option for an external body to review the substance of the complaint.
I ask the Minister to consider the Lancashire education authority for one such pilot. My constituents need such help and they need it now.
4.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families (Ms Diana R. Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing the debate. I know from the passionate way in which she spoke that she is very concerned about the issue.
Governance, leadership and strong lines of accountability are essential to making our schools a success. Parents should be able to send their children to school confident that they will receive the highest possible standard of education; that their health, well-being and safety are being cared for; and that any problems are dealt with by professionals in an appropriate and timely manner. There must be mechanisms in place for parents to express their concerns, secure in the knowledge that they will be dealt with quickly, effectively and fairly by all involved—the head teacher, the senior leadership team and the governing body.
I was concerned to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent. I will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend with officials from the Department for Children, Schools and Families to discuss the circumstances of the case.
To set the scene, I shall talk about the complaints procedure at local level. Since September 2003, all schools have been required to have a complaints procedure. That procedure must also be published so that it is available for public scrutiny. My Department has produced a complaints procedure toolkit to help schools to formulate their complaints procedures. It took the form of non-statutory guidance that schools could use or adapt to their circumstances. Generally, schools follow the three-part approach: investigation of a complaint by a staff member;
investigation by the head teacher or the chair of governors when appropriate; and, finally, if the complaint has still not been resolved, a meeting of a panel of governors.
Governing bodies must act for the interests of the children in their school, which should drive any decision that they take. They must also rigorously ensure that those who serve on complaints panels conduct a fair and unprejudiced investigation. Of course, parents should be kept informed of progress and any decisions taken by the panel.
Beyond the local level, when a parent remains unsatisfied with the outcome of the complaints panel, some local authorities may offer an independent review of the complaint, although that is not a statutory requirement. All complainants, however, have the right to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if their complaint cannot be resolved at local level. Under sections 496 and 497 of the Education Act 1996, the Secretary of State has the power to investigate a complaint and to issue a direction about a decision made by a governing body or a local authority, but he is able to do so only in very limited circumstances, namely when there has been a breach of a statutory duty or when the governing body has acted “unreasonably” with regard to the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty under the Education Acts.
The Secretary of State is not at liberty to substitute his judgment for that of a local education authority or a governing body just because he might have reached a different decision in the same circumstances. Rather, he must be satisfied that a decision is unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable authority or governing body acting with due regard to their statutory responsibilities would have reached such a decision. I should add that “unreasonably” in this context has been interpreted by the courts as meaning acting in a way in which no sensible local education authority or governing body, acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities, would have acted. That is a narrow and testing definition. For example, it does not allow the Secretary of State to substitute his own judgment for that of the governing body, or to issue a direction because he would have acted differently.
The Secretary of State therefore does not have the power to re-investigate matters that are properly the responsibility of school governing bodies; he can only consider whether the school governing body acted reasonably and within the law in handling and addressing the complaint. Taking that into account, he needs to weigh all the matters and decide whether it is expedient to issue a decision and whether there is a practical step under his powers in education law that he can use to direct the governing body to take action.
At the heart of the problem that my hon. Friend outlined was a child who fairly obviously had special educational needs that were not being addressed. Local authorities have important and extensive duties to identify, assess and make provision for children with special educational needs, and to keep their arrangements for doing so under review. Schools and governing bodies must do their best to ensure that the necessary provision is made for any pupil who has SEN.
When a child has a statement of SEN—my hon. Friend indicated that there was no statement in the case she outlined—parents may express a preference for the maintained school, be it mainstream or special, that
they want their child to attend, or to make representations for a placement in a non-maintained special school or independent school. Local authorities must comply with a parental request for a maintained school unless the school is unsuitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs, or the placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children with whom the child would be educated, or with the efficient use of resources. If parents disagree with the school named by a local authority in their child’s statement, they have a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal on special educational needs and disability
If parents believe that provision is not being made to meet their child’s needs, they should discuss it with the school in the first instance, through the school’s SEN co-ordinator and/or the head teacher. If they remain dissatisfied, they should then discuss the matter with the local authority maintaining their child’s statement. If they still feel that there has been no satisfactory resolution, they can make a complaint to the Secretary of State through the SEN operations team in my Department. They should set out their concerns in writing, explaining what provision specified in their child’s statement the local authority is failing to provide and enclose a copy of their child’s statement.
The Secretary of State takes very seriously any failure by a local authority to fulfil its statutory duties. Where necessary, the Secretary of State will not fail to exercise the powers available to him under the Education Act 1996. There are, however, limits to those powers, and any direction that he might make must be expedient and commensurate with the issue raised.
On strengthening schools, my hon. Friend made much of the capacity of governing bodies and the decisions that they might be asked to make. Of course, as our school systems develop to meet the changing needs of education and communities in the 21st century, we must continue to reassess our processes to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
I note what my hon. Friend said about research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment led a working group in his previous role as Minister of State for Schools and Learners to consider how governance will need to develop to meet the needs of 21st-century schools. One of the issues being considered by the working group is improving the skills and training of governors. We will be enhancing training for governors so that it focuses on holding school leadership to account by effective challenge.
Parent governors also have an important role to play. They can engage actively with the school community to communicate the governing body’s decisions and give parents more knowledge of how the governing body works. We will press ahead with our work to ensure that all governing bodies have the vision, capacity and skills to provide the best service possible for the children and parents in their communities. The working group is still conducting the review and will report later this year.
Work is also under way to strengthen the complaints system for parents, following a commitment in the children’s plan to consider how to improve the current arrangements. My hon. Friend referred to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which is in the Lords. We are doing two things in the Bill: legislating to enable the local government ombudsman to investigate complaints about individual school issues, and producing both statutory and non-statutory guidance to clarify the processes at school level. She was concerned that matters should be dealt with in a timely way, and I hope that that will be dealt with in the guidance.
The LGO will investigate complaints where there is no alternative right of appeal and where the complaint relates directly to a school’s duty. In other cases, parents will still be signposted to other routes. For instance, complaints about permanent exclusions will still be heard by independent appeal panels, complaints related to admissions will still go to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, and the first-tier tribunal will continue to hear complaints related to local authorities’ special educational needs provision. If my hon. Friend wants to write to me formally to say that her local education authority is interested in being a pilot area for the initiative, I will be happy to discuss it further with her.
Most schools handle complaints quickly and effectively, but where they do not, I know that they can cause frustration and upset to parents and pupils alike. That is why we are reviewing the current system and improving it to ensure that it is as robust as possible. That is also why it is important to have checks and balances right through the system, with a clear process so that parents can be heard in the first instance and escalate their complaint if they feel that those handling their case have not given them a satisfactory level of service. We are not asking schools to do something extra. This is about a basic level of service that parents should be able to expect from every school, not just an elite few. Through our reforms, we will ensure that every school is a good school, working hard at the heart of its community to serve local children and their families.
Pet Passports
4.25 pm
Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): I am grateful to you, Mr. Caton, and to the previous Speaker for allocating me this debate. It is good that we will have an extra five minutes. I welcome the Minister to his seat. Like me, he will know that we are a nation of animal lovers, which is a good thing, so the issues that we are debating will be of great concern to many of our constituents throughout the country.
I must confess that I did not know a great deal about the pet passport scheme until one of my constituents came to me a couple of months ago with a rather awful story about what had happened to her and her pet. I will say at the outset that officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have tried to be as helpful as possible to my constituent. I am grateful to them for that, but I believe that their hands might have been tied to a certain extent.
By the end of next month, my constituent will have been parted from her much-loved pet for a total of 13 months. The dog has been outside the UK for two six-month quarantine periods. The total cost to my constituent of keeping her dog outside the country now approaches £8,000. Many pet owners would not be able to afford that, so when such things go wrong, sadly, it can effectively be the death sentence of the pets concerned. I accept that the case is an unusual one, but having listened to what my constituent told me and done some research, I have realised that numerous people fall foul of the rules of the pet passport scheme every year.
Before I describe in more detail what happened to my constituent, it might be helpful if I run through the four general policy areas that that sad saga has illuminated, and I would be grateful if the Minister commented on them. I spoke to his private office early this morning, to be as helpful as possible so that our debate could be constructive.
The first general question is how much discretion the Secretary of State has in such matters. In the case of my constituent, I think that the DEFRA officials generally recognised that the dog posed absolutely no risk whatever to the health of anyone—human or animal—in the United Kingdom. The dog had had four different blood tests under two different microchips. It was a British dog and had originated in the UK, which is of course rabies-free—a significant point. I am aware that the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion on at least two occasions to allow the strict requirements of the pet travel scheme to be waived. They were two distressing cases in which it was right for the Secretary of State to act as he did.
My constituent was told by the Minister’s officials that her last hope was for the Secretary of State to authorise a risk assessment in her case. I pressed the Secretary of State hard to do so, but the letter that I received said that it was not possible. My constituent and I are a little unclear about how much discretion the Secretary of State has. As I said, it was recognised that the dog in question did not pose any risk to public health in the United Kingdom. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on that slight uncertainty.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |