Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence from those Members who are unable to attend the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor Aafaq Butt.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on the 28^th April 2025.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on the 28^th April 2025 be approved as a correct record

Members will be asked to say if there are any items on the Agenda in which they have any disclosable pecuniary interests or any other interests, which may prevent them from participating in any discussion of the items or participating in any vote upon the items.

No interests were declared.

Most agenda items take place in public. This only changes where there is a need to consider exempt information, as contained at Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. You will be informed at this point which items are to be recommended for exclusion and to be resolved by the Committee.

All agenda items were considered in public session.

The Panel will receive any petitions and/or deputations from members of the public. A deputation is where up to five people can attend the meeting and make a presentation on some particular issue of concern. A member of the public can also submit a petition at the meeting relating to a matter on which the body has powers and responsibilities.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 10, Members of the Public must submit a deputation in writing, at least three clear working days in advance of the meeting and shall subsequently be notified if the deputation shall be heard. A maximum of four deputations shall be heard at any one meeting.

No deputations or petitions were received.

To receive any public questions.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, the period for the asking and answering of public questions shall not exceed 15 minutes.

Any questions must be submitted in writing at least three clear working days in advance of the meeting.

In accordance with Council Procedure rule 11, Corinne Hunter read out questions on behalf of Emma Day which they had submitted in writing.

“I wish to raise concerns about the local authority’s compliance with statutory mediation requirements for EHCP decisions supported by evidence from a recent Freedom of Information response and the LA's own policy documents. Under the Children of Families Act 2014 and SEND regulations 2014, parents must be able to access mediation advice and obtain a mediation certificate before proceeding to the first-tier tribunal. While parents can choose not to mediate, the LA has a statutory duty to provide effective mediation services when requested, with meetings required to be held within 30 days of the mediation service notifying the LA. The SEN Code of Practice emphasises that mediation should be a genuine attempt to resolve disagreements, not a procedural box ticking exercise. With SEND tribunal waiting times at record highs nationally, effective mediation is crucial for timely dispute resolution when mediation fails. Families are forced into lengthy tribunal processes causing educational delays for vulnerable children and significantly higher costs for the LA.”

Question 1:

Freedom of Information data from covering the period 1 July 2024 - 31 December 2024 shows that of 67 requests for mediation across all Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) disagreements (including Refusal to Assess, Refusal to Issue, and Contents), zero mediation meetings were arranged within the required 30-day timeframe - representing a 100% failure rate. What immediate action will be taken to address this complete breakdown of statutory mediation services?

Question 2:

The Terms of Reference for the EHCP Decision Making Panel (September 2024) shows only the Chair (EHCP Senior Manager) has decision-making authority. The FOI response states that "all overturned decisions via mediation are taken back to panel for processing." Given that effective mediation should enable immediate implementation of agreements, why do all mediation outcomes require subsequent panel approval rather than being resolved at the mediation meeting itself?

Supplementary Question

During this same period, approximately 48% of refusal decisions were overturned via mediation. What measures will address this disconnect between initial refusal decisions and subsequent approvals, suggesting fundamental flaws in the Decision Making Panel's application of legal criteria?

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 11, Lisa Green attended the meeting and asked the following questions which they had submitted in writing:

As part of the Panel’s upcoming work plan, scrutiny is to be given to the EHCP process and the Local authority’s use of Tribunals to settle cases.

Question 1:

What will the Panel’s specific focus of scrutiny be re EHCPs / Tribunals? 

Question 2:

What is the extent of the panel’s powers to ensure lawful accountability in this area?

A response was provided on behalf of the Panel.

RESOLVED:

(1)  That the Members of the Public be thanked for their questions.

(2)  That the Panel would consider EHCP timescales and compliance, and the tribunals process as part of the work programme at the meeting on 11th December.

(3)  That the Panel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The Panel will consider the Kirklees SEND Sufficiency for Kirklees 2025-2028 strategy document, which provides information on the work being undertaken to ensure sufficiency of provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in Kirklees.

Contact: Jo-Anne Sanders, Service Director, Learning and Early Support

              Stewart Horn, Head of Children’s Integrated Commissioning

The Panel considered a report providing assurance of the work being undertaken to ensure sufficiency of provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in Kirklees and this was presented by Jo-Anne Sanders, Service Director for Learning and Early Support.  The Panel were asked to consider and support the Kirklees SEND Sufficiency for Kirklees 2025-28 and to note the actions undertaken to address some of the issues raised in the report.

Stuart Horn, Head of Children’s Sufficiency presented the highlights of the report which:

·         Demonstrated understanding of the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities in Kirklees

·         Defined the provision in place to meet those needs and support children’s learning.

·         Identified gaps in provision and potential areas for growth, and considered the development of provision to meet future needs.

·         Identified where needs had changed and where some provision may need to be decommissioned.

Stuart Horn advised the Panel that “sufficiency” meant “having enough of the right stuff” – the report examined whether there were the right learning places available to meet children’s needs.

The Panel was informed that Practitioners from learning services, schools, health and voluntary sectors and parent carer forums had contributed to the design of the approach. The report had been created using a variety of data and intelligence sources from across the partnerships, and Stewart Horn explained that it was important to use consistent, agreed data sets.  The principal data set used was the SEN2 data, taken from the annual return to the Department for Education, which identified:

·         An increase in speech and language need especially in the early years

·         An increase in social emotional and mental health needs in secondary schools and at points of transition, particularly from primary to secondary

·         A rise in children with neurodiversity with additional needs such as mental health, learning needs or behavioural challenges.

The Panel noted that key features of the strategy included:

• How to support secondary settings to develop the inclusive approach that was evident in primary schools.
• The need for longer-term improvement in post-16 provision, to ensure the type, range and diversity of provision so that children with a range of different interests, aspirations, and abilities could be catered for.
• The aim to educate children as close to home as possible, by reducing the reliance on the independent school sector, particularly the out of area independent school sector. This required an increase in and improvement of state funded, local-to-Kirklees provisions.

Stewart Horn advised the Panel that the strategy report also outlined current developments in provision:

• The rebuild and expansion of two special schools was underway. The construction of Joseph Norton, the social emotional mental health school had just begun in Deighton and the new site for Woodley School, the school and college for children with autism was about to start construction.
• In recent years satellite provisions had been developed, where special schools utilised space in mainstream schools. In these satellite provisions, children were on the roll of the special school and educated by special  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The Panel will consider any potential areas of pre-decision scrutiny in accordance with any cabinet decisions relating to children and young people which are on the horizon and receive updates from senior officers in Children’s Services.

Contact:          Service Directors (Children’s Services)

No items of pre-decision scrutiny on Cabinet decisions were discussed. 

Panel Members who attend the Kirklees Parenting Board, will feedback on key areas of focus considered by the Board, which will be of interest to the Panel.

The Panel noted that there had been no meetings of the Kirklees Parenting Board since the last Children’s Scrutiny Panel meeting.

The Panel suggested that the Kirklees Parenting Board and especially the Care Leaver representatives, be briefed on the role of scrutiny to encourage engagement and broaden understanding.

RESOLVED:

That Tom Brailsford raise awareness at Kirklees Parenting Board to highlight the role of the Children’s Scrutiny Panel with the Chair of the Kirklees Parenting Board, Cllr Viv Kendrick.

The Panel will consider the proposed areas of focus and activity for the 2025/26 municipal year within the work programme and agenda plan discuss the method and means to be used to continue the Panel’s work going forward.

Contact:         Helen Kilroy, Assistant Democracy Manager

The Panel discussed whether the EHCP quality assurance framework should be included in the Panel’s areas of focus and added to the work programme and the Chair agreed to be briefed by Officers and feedback to the Panel.

RESOLVED:

(1) That the progress on the Work Programme and Agenda Plan for 2024-25 be noted.

(2) That the Chair be briefed by officers on whether the EHCP Quality Assurance Framework should be added to the Panel’s areas of focus and included within the work programme for 2025-26.