Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for all appeals involving Surrey County Council the number of cases in which the Tribunal issued a) a notice proposing that the local authority be barred from further participation and b) a barring order preventing the local authority from taking further part in the appeal, reported separately for 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 to date.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many notices of intention under Rule 7(3) have been issued by the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) by local authority in each of the last three year.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data about how many notices of intention under Rule 7 (3) (by local authority) have been issued, and whether any barring orders have been made, by the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) in each of the last three years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Data on non-compliance, complaints about non-compliance, or binding orders made, following a decision made by the Tribunal is not held centrally. The Tribunal does not have powers of enforcement over local authorities. Escalation of non-compliance of a Tribunal’s decision is to the Local Authority. If the decision is still not being complied with, this could be escalated to the Local Authority Ombudsman. Guidance about this is provided to appellants.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to (a) Section 51(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 and (b) the powers of the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) to issue binding orders following appeal hearings, what (i) monitoring and (ii) reporting arrangements on compliance with binding Tribunal orders have been implemented following appeal hearings, broken down by local authority; what formal route of escalation is available to people where rulings relating to those appeal hearings are not implemented; and how many (A) notifications and (B) complaints relating to non-compliance have been received from (1) appellants and (2) local authorities since 2022.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data about how many notices of intention under Rule 7 (3) (by local authority) have been issued, and whether any barring orders have been made, by the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) in each of the last three years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Data on non-compliance, complaints about non-compliance, or binding orders made, following a decision made by the Tribunal is not held centrally. The Tribunal does not have powers of enforcement over local authorities. Escalation of non-compliance of a Tribunal’s decision is to the Local Authority. If the decision is still not being complied with, this could be escalated to the Local Authority Ombudsman. Guidance about this is provided to appellants.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what (a) monitoring and (b) reporting arrangements his Department has put in place to ensure that repeated non-compliance by local authorities in the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) is escalated to (i) the Department for Education, (ii) the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, (iii) Ofsted, (iv) the Care Quality Commission and (v) other relevant oversight bodies; and where this information is published.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data about whether any barring orders have been made by the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) in each of the last three years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Data on non-compliance, following a decision made by the Tribunal is not held centrally. The Tribunal does not have powers of enforcement over local authorities. Escalation of non-compliance of a Tribunal’s decision is to the Local Authority. If the decision is still not been complied with, this could be escalated to the Local Authority Ombudsman. Guidance about this is provided to appellants.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether any barring orders have been made by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008 in each of the last three years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data about whether any barring orders have been made by the First Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) in each of the last three years could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Data on non-compliance, following a decision made by the Tribunal is not held centrally. The Tribunal does not have powers of enforcement over local authorities. Escalation of non-compliance of a Tribunal’s decision is to the Local Authority. If the decision is still not been complied with, this could be escalated to the Local Authority Ombudsman. Guidance about this is provided to appellants.
Asked by: Chris Coghlan (Liberal Democrat - Dorking and Horley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether she has considered the merits of expanding the functions of the Public Guardian to include responsibility for appropriate discharge of mental capacity assessments.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, which provides a framework for making decisions on behalf of adults who are unable to do so for themselves. The statutory Code of Practice issued under the Act provides guidance to practitioners on the conduct of capacity assessments in keeping with the principles of the MCA.
The Public Guardian is the statutory office holder created by the Act whose core functions relate primarily to registering lasting powers of attorney and supervising court appointed deputies. We have no current plans to expand these functions.