I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) on securing this Adjournment Debate. This is the first debate in which my hon. Friend has participated since his return to the House following his recent illness. We are all glad that he is again playing his part in our debates. He always raises important issues in a searching fashion, and he always champions his constituents doughtily, as he has done this evening. He has spoken on behalf of Mr. Linsie energetically and with feeling, and he raised important and difficult issues which are associated with the case.

My hon. Friend has chosen to speak at length. Within the constraints of this Adjournment debate, it is not possible for me to respond in detail to a range of matters which he has articulated.

It would be appropriate for me to begin by explaining the nature of the Department's involvement in this matter to date and how the Secretary of State arrived at his decisions in relation to the complaints that were put to him by Mr. Linsie under the Education Act 1944.

On 15 July 1990, the then Secretary of State received from Mr. Linsie a letter registering a formal complaint under sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944 against the metropolitan borough of Solihull. The substance of Mr. Linsie's complaint under section 68 of the Act was that the borough had acted unreasonably in dismissing him in December 1989 on grounds which were cited, as my hon. Friend has said, as "gross misconduct."

The Secretary of State's power to intervene under section 68 is restricted to those cases in which the local education authority has acted "unreasonably" with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under the Education Acts. From the information submitted by Mr. Linsie, there was no basis on which the Secretary of State could have intervened under section 68 of the 1944 Act as his complaint—that the LEA acted unreasonably against him for failing to comply with its instructions as employer—did not relate to the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty by the LEA under the Acts. Mr. Linsie was, therefore, notified of this position in relation to the section 68 complaint in a letter dated 15 August 1990.

The substance of Mr. Linsie's complaint under section 99 of the Act was that Solihull metropolitan borough council had failed to discharge its legal duties under section 5(3)(b) of the Education Act 1981. Mr. Linsie said that the borough had failed fully to inform parents about an aspect of its procedures used in making an assessment of its children under section 5 of that Act. In specific terms, Mr. Linsie's concern was that the borough had failed to advise parents of the existence of a set of guidelines issued to members of Solihull's school psychological service in 1984 and titled "Guidelines for Writing Psychological Reports."

My Department responded to the section 99 complaint in a letter dated 31 October 1990. This pointed out that the ultimate responsibility for formulating an assessment of a child's special educational needs rested with the local education authority, which had the task of co-ordinating the advice, evidence, representations and information received about the child. It was further observed that the local education authority had a legitimate right to require its officers and advisers to provide such information and advice as the LEA needed to perform its duties under the Education Acts and to provide guidelines to ensure that the necessary information was provided and that there was consistency between the advice and evidence proffered. The Secretary of State took the view that there was nothing in the 1981 Act or subsequent regulations which could have been construed as giving parents a statutory right to be informed about the existence and use of guidelines that were intended purely as an internal working instruction for educational psychologists or other professionals employed by the local education authority. It was, moreover, difficult to see how such a requirement would be practicable.

If the guidelines themselves had been inconsistent with the primary or the secondary legislation, as interpreted by the Secretary of State at the time of his decision, and if the content of the guidelines had formed part of the basis of Mr. Linsie's complaint, there would have been grounds for the Secretary of State to have intervened. However, as Mr. Linsie had made clear, the content of the guidelines was not the basis of his complaint under section 99 of the Education Act 1944. In the circumstances, there appeared to be no grounds which have would have justified the Intervention of the Secretary of State in relation to Mr. Linsie's complaint under section 99 of the Act.

It is my firm belief that local authority educational psychologists and their professional colleagues in other disciplines play a vital part in our realisation of the aims embodied by the Education Act 1981. Through the detailed reports which they provide, they help to ensure that the most appropriate provision possible is given to children who have special educational needs. They also help to ensure that, wherever possible, such provision is made in an integrated setting where children with special needs can learn alongside their peers. I must stress that my right hon. Friend's decisions referred to are not in any way a judgment about the contribution which Mr. Linsie has made to this process or about whether the termination of his employment with the borough of Solihull was justified. Those matters are for others to determine, not the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The Secretary of State's decisions on the complaints before him were quite simply based upon legal considerations in respect of the particular terms of Mr. Linsie's complaints.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.