HC Deb 30 November 1970 vol 807 cc298-9W
Mr. Evelyn King

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) when Lingfield Hospital School, Surrey, was last inspected; and whether any serious criticism was reported to her;

(2) whether she is satisfied that the ratio of staff to pupils is such as to enable Lingfield Hospital School adequately to cater for a pupil such as Glyn Kent; and whether she will make a statement;

(3) whether the authorities at Lingfield Hospital School at any time told Mrs. Kent that they had inadequate staff for the education and care of her son; in what terms; and on what date;

(4) what is the ratio of staff to pupils at Lingfield Hospital School.

Mrs. Thatcher

I have studied full reports on this tragic accident, and would like to take this opportunity of offering my sympathy to Glyn Kent's family. I will be considering whether any further guidance about safety precautions is called for on my part.

Lingfield Hospital School is an independent school and was last visited by a member of H.M. Inspectorate and one of the Department's senior medical officers on 16th and 17th April this year. No serious criticisms were made.

The total staff of the school is 243, of whom 32 are teaching staff, 95 are child care staff, and 13 medical or nursing staff. There are 320 pupil places, giving a staff: pupil ratio of approximately 3:4.

It is for the school to decide on the admission of pupils. My information is that Glyn Kent was admitted on 28th October this year on a trial basis after careful consideration of the medical reports on him and consultation with the local education authority's advisors, but that the school had not themselves seen Glyn before his admission. About a week after Glyn's admission the school expressed doubts to his parents and to the local education authority whether, in view of the severity of Glyn's disabilities, they would be able to keep him there. His future was, however, to be considered shortly at a case conference.

The terms of correspondence between an independent school, the parents of a pupil, and a local authority, are not within my responsibility, but I do not consider that in the circumstances there was anything unreasonable in the school's admission of this boy, or their subsequent doubts whether he could stay.