The Nottingham Common Purpose Effect | UK Column

Less than two months following publication of the Jay report into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham we learned that Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council have both ordered an urgent investigation into historical allegations of child abuse in care homes across the area.

If we travel back in time to 1992 we discover that the Dawson Report revealed that “something is badly wrong with Nottinghamshire’s social services ... in the past 18 months in Nottinghamshire 18 children have died at the hands of those with a duty to care for them.”

Then in 1993 during the trial of Colin Leat, who was convicted of murdering his three-year-old stepdaughter Leanne White, the trial judge criticised the County’s Social Services for having failed to protect Leanne, despite repeated calls from relatives and neighbours.

Ten years later, Christopher Atkins, 31, of Cotgrave, was jailed for a horrific sex attack on a girl, which left her with life-threatening injuries. The girl, under five years of age “had been in Nottinghamshire for nine weeks and was already subject to a protection plan because of neglect.” Nottinghamshire Safeguarding Children Board carried out a serious case review. This review criticised certain aspects of practice which included “a lack of robustness in assessing the child’s circumstances following the move to Nottinghamshire, in leadership of the child protection plan and in the responses to injuries sustained by the child.”

When announcing the new investigation, Nottinghamshire County Council Leader Alan Rhodes said, “It is also important to say that children’s social care services are unrecognisable today compared with even 20 years ago. Councils now operate differently and under much tighter controls and are monitored by Ofsted and independent Safeguarding Children Boards.” 

These and other cases beg the question why is Nottinghamshire suddenly interested now, when there has been a recognised history of failure in this area? Just how independent are the public bodies which have a statutory duty to protect our vulnerable children, and are they fit for purpose?

Even before the County and City Council investigations, Nottinghamshire Police had already set up Operation Daybreak to look into the matter. 80 complainants who attended five homes, including Beechwood, in Mapperley, have come forward. 

 More - 

The Nottingham Common Purpose Effect | UK Column

Tory Minister Lies To The Children.

https://www.change.org/p/nicky-morgan-mp-stop-children-and-young-people-losing-provision-and-support-when-transferring-between-a-statement-of-special-educational-needs-and-an-education-health-and-care-plan?recruiter=3154089&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-no_msg

 

In July 2014, The Children’s Minister Edward Timpson wrote;
‘No young person will miss out simply because the system is changing; I’ve made it clear that simply switching over to the new system should never be an excuse for children losing the support they currently have.’
Local Authorities have struggled to keep up with the changes, budgets have been slashed, training is poor and Legal Deadlines for the process are frequently breached. Far from enforcing the Statutory Transitional guidance; the government downgraded this to ‘Advice’ from March 2015. This does little to provide trust in these policies.

Many Local Authorities, who are pressured to make cuts because of reduced funding; have developed systems to remove vital support from the most vulnerable children and young people for whom they have a duty of care.

In September 2014 The Children and Families ACT came into force. The presentation of this is ‘Parent and Child Centred Reforms'; however there is a legal loop-hole which is being used by some Local Authorities to remove provision from the supporting document (which was called a ‘Statement of Special Educational Needs’) when this is transferred over to what is now called an ‘Education and Health Care Plan’ (EHCP). They are systematically removing provision from section F (Provision in the EHCP) and often without appropriate professional recommendations to say that this vital support is no longer required.

Many families report collusion between schools and colleges and the Local Authority which pressurises them to refuse to state if they are ‘unable to meet the needs’ (as the original Statement) of a young person with learning difficulties until the EHCP has removed the provision, thus giving them the ability to be named as ‘suitable’. This saves the County money by avoiding potential places at specialist independent colleges, or simply by reducing the therapy or additional support provided- but at what risk?

They do this because they can, because the legislation in the Children and Families Act 2014 does not stipulate that provision cannot be removed from part 3 of the statement when transferring to section F of the EHCP without appropriate professional recommendations.

Government statistics published in September 2014 states that there were 232,190 children in England who have a Statement of SEN, which means that nearly a quarter of a million children are at risk of having their provision removed.

Refusal to make assessments of children who have special educational needs is common – of those refused only 14% appeal to the SEND Tribunal; however 86% who appeal win their case. This has become a barrier to support and a step in the process. When assessments are carried out there is a serious lack of trust in the independence of the professionals used. They are often unavailable for children but quick to jump to the defence of Local Authorities in Tribunal Appeals.

We are asking for a judicial review to revise and overhaul the new legislation which was hurried through, leaving Local Authorities ill-prepared, incorrectly trained and instead of helping those children with Special Educational Needs they are looking for ways to remove support and provision due to the pressure of restricted budgets. We want there to be accountability for Local Authorities who do not adhere to the Law, who create delays in order to circumvent the system and who leave families at emotional breaking point.

Was this the intention of the reforms, and if not can you assure us that changes will be made to legislation to protect the interests of the most vulnerable children in our society?