Agenda item

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

 

Any member of the public or councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Public Forum items should be emailed to scrutiny@bristol.gov.uk and please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:

 

Questions - Written questions must be received at least 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by 5.00 pm onTuesday 7 March 2023

 

Petitions and Statements - Petitions or written statements must be received at latest by 12.00 noon on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that petitions or statements must be received in this office at the latest by

12.00 noon on Friday 10 March 2023

 

Please note: questions, petitions and statements must relate to the remit of the

People Scrutiny Commission.

Public statements:

It was noted that the following public statements had been received:

Statement 1 - Rachel Green - topic: Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) services

Statement 2 - Jen Smith - topic: SEND services. Jen Smith was in attendance at the meeting and presented her statement.

Statement 3 - Mark Pennington-Field - topic: Closure of fostering service facilities at Capgrave Crescent and Rodbourne Road.  In relation to this statement, it was noted that details of these two properties were included as part of a Cabinet decision taken in January 2023 on the disposal of certain surplus council estate properties.  It was also noted that officers were drafting a separate briefing about fostering service facilities.

The Chair suggested (see also the Work Programme item below) that an in-depth look at fostering and adoption services could be considered as part of the Commission’s 2023/24 work programme.

 

Public questions:

It was noted that the following public questions had been received:

 

Question 1 - Jen Smith

Topic: Schools reported to the School Improvement Team

I would like to know how many and which schools have been reported to the School Improvement Team for the academic years 2018/19, 2019/20, 2020/21, 2021/22?

And, broken down into primary, secondary, specialist, PRU, other and LA maintained and academy/free school.

 

Officer response:

The School Partnerships Team is a small team who provide school improvement support specifically for maintained primary schools. They provide external support and challenge for local authority primary headteachers and leaders.  The team do not fulfil a reporting function for concerns regarding schools.

 

Jen Smith asked the following supplementary question:

In a Subject Access Request I received a while back, I noticed, at the end of 2019, a member of council staff was concerned about the way a Bristol secondary school treated my SEND child and were reporting issues to the school improvement team.  If anyone, including members of BCC staff are reporting SEND concerns with schools, where is this being reported, archived and logged?

 

It was noted that officers would investigate this point and then respond to the questioner.

Note: subsequent to the meeting, officers provided a response to the supplementary question as follows:

Any concerns raised with the local authority with regards to maintained schools are followed up by local authority officers or, if they are academies, then parent carers are supported/guided as to how to report their concerns through the school complaints process which is documented on their website.  Alternatively, if the child in question has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, then the parent/carer would be supported by the Statutory SEND team

 

Question 2 - Jen Smith

Topic: Learning disability and autism programme

 

Recommendations in the Learning Disability and Autism Programme say:

'The programme will have a number of component projects to address the following aims:

'Better forecasting of demand from Children’s Services into adult health and care services, and better transitional arrangements to ‘bridge the gap’ between childhood and adulthood.'

How is this likely to be achieved considering not all children and young people will be able to have an autism assessment due to a local criteria set by the NHS Bristol, N Somerset & S Gloucestershire Integrated Care Boards from this March?

 

Officer response:

Please note the data for forecasting will be drawn from Children Services and Education data.

We are not able to respond any further to this question as it relates to Sirona Care and Health’s autism assessment service for BNSSG and a change to the way they manage their waiting lists, which has changed from 1 March – see link:

https://www.sirona-cic.org.uk/nhsservices/childrens-services/referral-for-a-specialist-autism-assessment-service/

This question would be more appropriately directed to Sirona Care and Health as lead for autism assessments.

The points set out in the question are noted, however, and it may be the case that scrutiny members (People Scrutiny Commission and more particularly the Health Scrutiny Sub-Committee) may wish to consider looking into the issues raised by this policy/criteria change in greater depth when setting their work programme for the year ahead.

 

Jen Smith asked the following supplementary question:

In November 2022, Phil Minns wrote following the SEND re-inspection that ‘leaders are taking steps to reduce the waiting times for neurodiversity diagnosis and CAMHS assessments’. 

Education does not work in isolation to health and social care. They do work in partnership.

Is the council not concerned about the additional burden that a deliberate failure to diagnose will impact on the High Needs block?

 

In response, the Chair advised that he had submitted a question relating to this matter to the 14 March Full Council/Member Forum.  He was also aware that the issue had been flagged with the Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee.

 

Question 3 - Jen Smith

Topic: Secondary school resource bases – Performance Target BP0M220 – Increase the number of new specialist school places available

 

Papers to Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for the 14 February 2023 state: '... there have been some issues with secondary mainstream schools not wanting to open resource bases as this will have an impact on their results. This has been a barrier and we are opting to work with special schools to mitigate this. We need a substantial number of secondary specialist places created in phase 2 to meet the needs of the city. We are on target to exceed 450 specialist provision places by 2024’.

Which secondary schools do not want resource bases because it will impact on their results?

 

Officer response:

This comment is not related to specific secondary schools. This is a pressure expressed by secondary schools generally under the current accountability framework and publication of performance tables. The projects agreed in phase 2 of the specialist provision project will provide sufficient secondary school provision in the city. The newly announced special free school will also provide additional capacity.

 

Jen Smith asked the following supplementary question:

‘The statement to OSMB specifically says: ‘negotiation is underway with schools who will be involved in phase 2, and there have been some issues with secondary mainstream schools not wanting to open resource bases as this will impact on their results.’

I’ll take an answer on which schools these are. I’m asking the question again.’

 

The Chair suggested that officers should check if any further detail could be provided on this matter.  The Executive Director: Children and Education commented that work was being taking forward on inclusion in schools; officers were committed to ensuring transparency with scrutiny members around this work.

 

Note: subsequent to the meeting, officers provided a further response to the supplementary question as follows:

This is a nationwide pressure felt by all secondary schools as a result of the publication of performance tables. There is no record that this comment relates to specific secondary schools. Secondary school provision has been prioritised with phase 2 of the specialist provision project on target to deliver sufficient secondary school provision. In addition to this, the special free school will provide additional secondary capacity.

 

Question 4 - Jen Smith

Topic: Education Health and Care performance update

According to the papers, there were 47 appeals related to section I. How many of these:
Are currently live and not resolved?

Were appealed because mainstream was more expensive than the school the family were seeking because the panel had not applied the correct legal test?

How many subsequently had section I changed to whatever it was the parent was requesting without a hearing?

How many subsequently had section I changed to whatever it was the parent was requesting with a hearing?
How many did not have section I changed either with a hearing or without?

 

Officer response:

Of the 47 appeals lodged in 2022 including section I (placement), 27 have now been completed with the Tribunal Services. Appeals are lodged for many reasons and as stated in the report the local authority takes seriously its responsibility to support families and find resolution whilst meeting its statutory duties. 

a. 23 appeals were resolved between the local authority and parents with Section I being amended without attending a hearing

b. <5 were resolved with section I changed as a result of a hearing

c. <5 did not have section I changed at all, either with or without a hearing.

 

Jen Smith asked the following supplementary question:

What improvement work is the SEND team undertaking to ensure they name schools in section I in a lawful manner, negating the need for families to force their legal rights via appeal hearings and ensuring limited LA resources are used appropriately?

 

In response, officers confirmed that the authority was undertaking this work in a lawful manner.  It was noted that, once an appeal was lodged, discussions would be held with parents to understand and try to resolve issues satisfactorily so that an appeal hearing may not be needed.

 

Question 5 – Sandra Thomas

Topic: Autism assessments

I am writing this in relation to the change of criteria and the stopping Autism Assessments from the 1st of March which means referrals received will be prioritised on the needs of each young child, young person and family by Sirona Care and Health.

 

I find it shocking that requests for assessments will only be considered if the child and young people meet the referral criteria in which the education placement is breaking down, not in Education or employment, children and young people whose family are at risk of breakdown, children who are in care or CIN plan, or children who are under CAMHS, so basically a child needs to be at crisis?

Every child and young person has the right to have their educational needs met, their health needs met, their social care needs met.

I would like to ask:-

Q1. Has the Bristol Autism Team had input into this new criteria? When was the meeting held? Who was invited?

 

Q2. Has the following been discussed?

- The Equality Act 2010-A child/young person must not be discriminated because of their disability, every child has the right to enjoy the highest possible standard of health, to access health and other related services and to facilitate for the treatment.

- Disability Discrimination - Section 6 of the Equality Act?

- Safeguarding children- (Empowerment, Prevention, Proportionality, Protection, Partnership, Accountability) by allowing this new criteria is going to cause emotional harm/neglect to children and young people.

 

Q3. Why isn't more funds made available to train up more staff to assess for Autism as it is only a team of three, who work term time only, surely if more trained assessors are available all year round, then this will indeed help the waiting lists?

Simply by ignoring a child has needs will only cause further mental health problems. The criteria to access CAMHS is unattainable and the therapy offered is behind in the times. Children and young people have the rights to be supported in their health and wellbeing.

The system is failing our children, we are our children's/young persons advocates, our voice/their voices need to be heard, to understand the impact of not having needs met, by having needs undiagnosed, for not being 'disabled enough', for having a hidden disability. By not receiving support will lead to mental health crisis, and more young adults taking their lives.

The new criteria is discriminatory!

Officer response:

We are not able to respond directly to these questions as they relate to Sirona Care and Health’s autism assessment service for BNSSG and a change to the way they manage their waiting lists, which has changed from 1 March – see link:

https://www.sirona-cic.org.uk/nhsservices/childrens-services/referral-for-a-specialist-autism-assessment-service/

These questions would be more appropriately directed to Sirona Care and Health as lead for autism assessments.

The points set out in the questions are noted, however, and it may be the case that scrutiny members (People Scrutiny Commission and more particularly the Health Scrutiny Sub-Committee) may wish to consider looking into the issues raised by this policy/criteria change in greater depth when setting their work programme for the year ahead.

 

Noting that the questioner concerned was not in attendance at the meeting, the Chair (with reference to question 2 above) reiterated that the issue had been flagged with the Council’s Health Scrutiny Committee.