To consider any requests received in accordance with Part 4, Section B, Paragraph 29 of the Council’s Constitution.
Minutes:
The Panel received a deputation regarding the recent joint OFSTED/Care Quality Commission (CQC) area inspection of Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) services. Amanda Bernard spoke on behalf of the deputation. She stated that parents and carers wished to have their say on the response to the joint inspection. They were often asked what they co-production meant to them but they did not think the onus should just be on parent and carers to respond. They had always wanted to work jointly and in co-production with the Council. They felt that they had been heard but not listened to. Parents and carers met frequently with officers who were referred to as professionals but they were also professionals in caring for their children. Only seventy days had been allowed to prepare a plan to resolve long standing issues in response to the joint inspection. The adversarial culture that existed had come about in response to the manner in which parents and carers had been treated. Although there had been some advocates for them within the Council, they had proven to be ineffectual.
SEND covered a wide range of different children and young people but the outcomes of consultations were normally based only on the views of the people who had responded first on-line. Some parents and carers did not have access to the internet though and were therefore unable to respond. Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans covered a range of interdependent issues. Attention also needed to be given to what happened when young people transitioned to adult services.
The joint inspection had highlighted what parents and carers had been saying for a long time. In responding, it was important that parents and carers were represented on bodies such as scrutiny panels as they represented a significant group of people. The needs of the Council ought not to outweigh those of families of children and young people with SEND. Provision also needed to be made for those whose first language was not English. In addition, there needed to be some semblance of truth and reconciliation.
The Chair thanked the deputation for their contribution and highlighting the issues they felt needed addressing. She felt that it was important that parents and carers were listened and responded to appropriately.
In response to a question, Ms Bernard stated that co-production meant what it said. It was about parents and carers not being told what to do but working together with the Council. The time frame in which parents and carers were given to respond to consultations was important. A range of events had been arranged as part of the response to the joint inspection. Many parents and carers had been given little or no notice of these. A minimum of 21 days notice needed to be provided. It should be possible to engage with all the families on the SEND register and not just rely on on-line feedback. She felt that if comprehensive consultation could be undertaken on proposed CPZ schemes, including door-to-door engagement, it could also be used for SEND. Co-production needed to be accessible to all and not just those on the parent-carer forum. Co-production meant that parents and carers were informed of the relevant meetings rather than finding out about them by chance, as had been the case with the current meeting.
Panel Members noted that the Scrutiny Review on SEND that had been undertaken by the Panel in 2019 had covered many of the same issues that had been highlighted in the joint inspection. Co-production was a priority for the current Council administration but it needed to deliver.
In answer to another question, Ms Bernard stated that the report on SEND by Amaze had suggested that a new parent-carer forum be set up and this was currently being done. Information on its development had only been sent out digitally though and this had excluded some parents and carers. It was important that parents and carers had a seat at the table if co-production was to be meaningful. Young people also needed to be involved and meetings made more accessible.
In answer to a question regarding what could be done to make progress quickly, Ms Bernard stated that truth and reconciliation was needed. It was essential that parents and carers were listened to. In addition, telephone calls and e-mails needed to be answered.
Michele Simmons-Safo, another member of the deputation, stated that there had been the same issues for some considerable time and parents were frustrated by the lack of progress. These issues were communication, EHC plans and lack of trust. A lot of money had been spent on the Amaze report but its recommendations were not being fully adhered to. In particular, adequate notice needed to be provided for parents or carers to attend meetings.
In answer to a question regarding was effective co-production would
look like, Ms Bernard stated that it would involve parents and
carers being treated as equals, being listened to, getting the
services that they required and being represented in all areas
where decisions that directly affected them were taken.
Councillor Zena Brabazon, the Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Families, responded that she agreed with the sentiments that been expressed and could understand why parents and carers were angry. Co-production required individuals to represent the whole. The new parent carer forum had recently been established and had met twice so far. She gave a commitment that she would attend all of its meetings and was happy to be held accountable. She agreed that there needed to be some sort of review that captured the learning from recent experiences but this could not merely look backward as there was a need to progress. She was happy to discuss the detail of how this could operate. She had made SEND her top priority on assuming the post of Cabinet Member earlier in the year. The parent carer forum was administered by the Bridge Renewal Trust and not the Council but she nevertheless agreed that adequate notice should be given for meetings. She agreed with the suggestion that there should be a co-opted Member of the Panel to represent SEND parent and carers. In addition, the local offer website could be used to publicise future Panel meetings. She felt that the service was on an upward curve. The Ofsted report had been fair in its conclusions and she fully accepted these. Relationships with parents and carers were key to how the service should operate and the service was fully committed to developing these. She would answer all e-mails that she was sent. However, she received a lot of e-mails and had a big workload so could not always reply by return. Her role had given her the opportunity to visit a number of schools and witness some of the excellent inclusive practice that took place, some of which had been noted by Ofsted. There had been problems in the past, such as failures in communication and systems that did not work well. Things were improving though and she was determined to bring about change.
Ms Bernard stated that parents and carers had previously been given commitments there would be improvements but these had not materialised. Although the parent carer forum had technically begun to operate, much of what was required for it to function had not been established so far and relationships had yet to be developed fully. The Bridge Renewal Trust was not a SEND specific organisation and therefore needed to learn from parents and carers. Smart provision was needed in order to deliver smart outcomes.
The Panel was of the view that a joint meeting with the Adults and Health Panel could be arranged to consider relevant SEND issues that affected both children and adults. Progress with the implementation of the recommendations of the joint inspection and the written statement of action would be monitored by the Panel. In addition, the Panel would also be considering the new SEND Strategy at its meeting in March. It was agreed that the Panel would meet separately with parent and carer representatives to obtain their views on progress as part of this ongoing process. Communication with parents and carers needed to be accessible as possible and not just reliant on digital means.
AGREED:
1. That consideration be given to the appointment of a non-voting co-opted Member to the Panel to represent Special Needs and Disabilities (SEND); and
2. That, ahead of the Panel’s meeting on 7 March, a meeting be arranged between Panel Members and SEND parent and carer representatives to obtain their views on progress with the response to recommendations of the joint area inspection and associated written statement of action.