An open letter:

From: John Angarrack, 45 Higher Bore Street, Bodmin, Cornwall UK. PL31 1JS

To: Pat Saunders, Commission for Local Administration, The Oaks, No 2 Westwood Way, Westwood Business Park, Coventry CV4 8JB

5 October 2003

Dear Ms Stevens

Complaint: Cornwall 'County' Council decision to prevent children from registering as Cornish on the annual schools survey and resultant curriculum loss. 03/B/0028/PAS

I have received your letter of 24 September giving reasons why the UK Ombudsman has chosen not to investigate our complaint. I note that the decision to dismiss the complaint comes after the Ombudsman failed to elicit any response to questions asked by his Office of Cornwall County Council [CCC].

A public authority failing to provide information, causing unnecessary delay and failing specifically to answer letters is deemed by the Ombudsman to be maladministration in itself, so why has the Ombudsman not insisted that CCC respond to his Offices letters sent over a six-month period?

"Anyone who, without lawful excuse, obstructs an Ombudsman in the performance of his or her functions is guilty of an act or omission which, if the investigation were a proceeding in the High Court, would constitute contempt of court (there has not, so far, ever been need to resort to proceedings for contempt)." Taken from "What are the Ombudsman's powers"

The given reason for the dismissal of our complaint is twofold [see below for full dismissal text]. Firstly, the Ombudsman cannot see what injustice my sons have suffered and secondly, the Ombudsman is prevented by Section 26 of the Local Government Act 1974 from investigating complaints against a schools curriculum.

I do not accept the reasons for dismissal as valid. Section 26 deals with relationships between the Ombudsman and a schools delivery of its curriculum. We are not asking the Ombudsman to investigate this relationship. We are asking the Ombudsman to investigate the relationship between CCC Local Education Authority [LEA] and schools in regard to the LEA preventing our children from registering as Cornish, and the resultant LEA failure to advise schools to implement a curriculum that reflects the existing regional demography. There is nothing in the 1974 Act precluding the Ombudsman from investigating this complaint. Regarding the Ombudsman's inability to identify any injustice, I now set out with greater clarity the injustice suffered by my sons.

Cornwall [Kernow] is a multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual and multifaith society. Its diverse character has been enriched in recent years by the arrival of refugees, asylum seekers, travellers, a small number of non-whites, significant numbers of other white British people and the emergence of a re-invigorated Cornish dimension. To a greater or lesser extent the former groups have protection under the law while the Cornish appear to have none. There is evidence to support the claim that, when it comes to the provision of educational services and access to cultural funding, this anomaly generates a permissive environment for certain public authorities to perpetrate acts of unlawful discrimination against the Cornish. This address looks briefly at the provision of educational services.

If given the freedom to do so, approximately one third of pupils in Cornwall LEA maintained schools would identify as Cornish [Plymouth University survey]. This extrapolates up to some 25,000 pupils. The LEA are under an obligation to ensure that school and local authority support service policies not only reflect this demography, but prepare pupils and students for life in this diverse society. This implies that schools and support services should be encouraged by the LEA to provide a curriculum and learning environment which:

Multiethnic Society: What should it mean for Cornwall?

Education for a Multiethnic Society is an education that prepares all pupils and students for life in an ethnically and culturally diverse society. It would seem to have two main ideals. Firstly, schools and support services in Cornwall should be encouraged by the LEA to transmit a thorough knowledge of, and develop respect for, Cornish ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity. Secondly, Education for a Multiethnic Society should seek to eliminate the prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behaviour that can militate against equality of opportunity for Cornish people. If the LEA properly addressed this issue, two key requirements of the Macpherson Report, "valuing cultural diversity and preventing racism in order better to reflect the needs of a diverse society" would be met.

To the limited extent that Cornwall LEA accommodate the Cornish dimension, it is treated as a subject area to be added if teacher willingness, school time and financial resources permit. However, to fulfil legal obligations, Education for a Multiethnic Society should be a cross-curricular aspect woven through the life and work of schools, permeate every area of the curriculum, and be addressed by every teacher.

This is not the case in Cornwall where the Portfolio for Education acknowledges that the Cornish are an ethnic group but states that "it is not her job" to ensure that the curriculum reflects the Cornish dimension, asserts that to accommodate difference is "dangerous" and refuses to answer curriculum related questions. [Letters dated 14/8/01 and 13/2/03]

Although the Council accept that the Cornish are a distinct ethnic group, and continually make positive statements about the need to preserve and promote Cornish distinctiveness [See Statements of Case], Cornwall LEA refuse to implement meaningful measures that would reflect this situation, and primary source material that would reveal this dimension to pupils is kept out of the school environment. When challenged, Cornwall County Solicitors Department asserted that the national curriculum is above the Human Rights Act 1998 [Letter dated 22 May 2002].

The April 16th 2003 letter from the Chief Executive purporting to deal with questions regarding the LEA's attitude to the curriculum did not address parental concerns. Home Office RR65 forms served on the Council in July 2003 contained twenty questions relating to the LEA's influence over, and attitude towards, the delivery of the curriculum. None were answered. Furthermore, Council responses to the RR65 forms reveal a refusal by this body to come to terms with reality. The following are but mere examples:

In respect of the PLASC decision, ‘Cornish’ is the only Census 2001 ‘White British’ sub-group excluded from the DfES survey. However, the Council has not apologised to parents, offered to right the wrong or even admit they were wrong. Quite the opposite in fact, for CCC/LEA correspondence, and the RR65 responses, reveal that the Council asserts they behaved correctly in respect of the PLASC decision. This implies that they would, if given the opportunity, do it again.

The Chief Executives RR65 responses 1 & 16 [available on request] show that, despite assurances to the contrary in their 16th September 2003 letter, they have created that opportunity. So the Councils 16th September statement in respect of an all-encompassing Cornish ethnic monitoring policy is entirely misleading.

Furthermore, although it has cost approximately £10,000 to pressurise the Council into accepting a limited form of Cornish ethnic monitoring, children remain barred from registering as Cornish in schools for at least for the next ten years; or in other words, for their entire school lifetime. This ongoing statistical invisibility means that Cornish children are prevented from systematically accessing the in-depth multiethnic education to which they are entitled. Without some form of external intervention, how will this injustice be overcome?

Although the Cornwall LEA Education Development Plan [EDP] 2002-2007 acknowledges that the Cornish dimension is a significant issue, and recognises that low cultural awareness leads to low self-esteem, measures taken by the LEA to reflect this situation receive a disproportionately low level of funding. The lead LEA measure is entitled ‘A Sense of Place’. Because implementation of this scheme is ad hoc and optional, take up is minimal. These limitation factors, together with the diluted content of LEA material, defeat the stated aim of the project. As a result, legal requirements as set out below are not met.

The Portfolio Holder for Education is a member of the 'Sense of Place' evaluation and monitoring group, yet the Member refuses to answer questions related to the scheme, [letter dated 14/2/03 & RR65 response] and the Council deny any responsibility for delivery of the curriculum into schools [letter 16/09/03]. Yet the LEA has a duty to promote high standards of education [School Standard and Framework Act] and retains responsibility for ensuring that schools act properly in the exercise of their functions. Last year two young Cornish pupils who questioned the delivery of the curriculum were disciplined, and eventually forced out of the LEA maintained education system.

Although the EDP runs from 2002 to 2007, it uses ethnic group profiling that excludes the Cornish. The consequence of using inaccurate data is that future long term educational development takes no structured account of the emerged requirement to both monitor Cornish children and provide for their educational needs.

Cornwall LEA should be obliged to update its EDP to include the Cornish dimension. It should also urge schools to conduct a review of practice in order to:

In respect of their legal obligations, the LEA is failing to accept that it must:

The LEA's failure to carry out correct ethnic monitoring procedures, and provide an appropriate lead role, means that schools and support services are able to operate in a educational environment that, in respect of the Cornish dimension, fails to satisfy the following international obligations and domestic legal requirements:

The 1976 Race Relations Act, the 1988 Education Reform Act, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Education Act 1996, the Human Rights Act 1998 inc. various Strasbourg rulings, Statutory Code of Practice on LEA-School Relations, CRE Framework for a Race Equality Policy for Schools, the 1999 Home Secretary's Action Plan for the Implementation of the Macpherson Report into the Stephen Lawrence Murder Inquiry, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Council of Europe Charter for Regional and Minority Languages the 2000 Race Relations (Amendment) Act and European Directive/2000/43/EC.

In the final analysis, the de facto position is that even after spending years writing to CCC/LEA, our children have been, and still are:

  1. Prevented from registering as Cornish in school surveys; which means they are,

  2. Denied access to the Cornish driven multiethnic curriculum to which they are entitled.

Your last paragraph [shown below] stated that I should instead complain to the Office for Standards in Education [Ofsted]. I did so, and David Bell, Chief Inspector of Ofsted, stated that, "Our role does not extend to investigating how statistical surveys are carried out" [March 4 2003]. Regards the LEA fulfilling its legal responsibility towards children in respect of the curriculum, the Chief Inspector said "Inspection team resources do not permit them to investigate whether the LEA acts in accordance with legislation" [16 May 2003]. Mr Bell finished by saying that we should pursue our complaint not with Ofsted, but with the LEA.

Government guidelines detailed in the  "Framework for the Inspection of Local Educational Authorities" [HMI 345] show that David Bell's assertions constitute a false assessment of Ofsteds powers. So will the Ombudsman consider investigating this public authority in respect of our complaint? Or:

Will the Ombudsman accept that he has powers to investigate our bona fide complaint?

Will the Ombudsman acknowledge that my sons have suffered a real and tangible loss as a result of an unwarranted CCC decision?

Will the Ombudsman compel CCC to respond to the Ombudsman's various letters of enquiry?

Will the Ombudsman act according to his raison d'être?

John Angarrack

Director Cornwall 2000 and parent action co-ordinator.

Copies to: European Monitoring Centre on Racial Intolerance, EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Council of Europe Secretariat - Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Council of Europe Committee of Experts of the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, European Platform of Regulatory Authorities, European Ombudsman, Federal Union of European Nationalities, EU Culture Commissioner, Eurolang, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Aire Centre; UN Committee - Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNESCO, Minority Rights Group, UK Home Office, UK Commission for Racial Equality, UK Legal Services Commission, UK Audit Commission,  UK Office of National Statistics, UK Department for Education and Skills and numerous other NGO's, government departments and International bodies.

                                                    ***

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THIRD PARTIES

On 29 April 2003 the Ombudsman wrote to CCC in  the following terms asking for comment:

1. Cornwall County Council did not include Cornish as an ethnic group in its response to DfES when DfES was compiling its Key Lists of ethnic groups, which is used as a basis for Government, Councils, Ofsted and Schools as a basis for measuring, and comparing the performance of schools pupils, and for assessing whether ethnic groups are disadvantaged.  The Councils decision is inconsistent with the following decisions:

i) by central government that Cornish should be an ethnic group.

ii) by the Council in its 16 Feb 1999 decision to include the ethnic Cornish group in the monitoring and delivery of Council services.

2) The Council has not considered properly whether to include the history, language and culture of the Cornish people in the history curriculum taught in Council maintained schools.  

When the Ombudsman provided us with a copy he wrote, "When I have considered the Councils response I will write to you saying what steps the Ombudsman will take."

                                                   ***                                  

After waiting six months, the Ombudsman had still not received a reply from the Council. Instead, on 24th September the Ombudsman sent us the following letter.

                                                   ***

I am sorry it has not been possible for me to write to you again before now. The Ombudsman has not received from the Council the information which he sought. Therefore he has personally reviewed our file about your complaint, and has asked me to write to you.

He has decided that your allegation that the Council has not considered properly whether to include the history, culture and language of the Cornish people in the history curriculum taught in schools is not his jurisdiction.

The Ombudsman could investigate your complaint about the way the Council made its decision not to include Cornish as an ethnic group in its response to the DfES. However, he does not propose to do so because he does not see what personal injustice you and your children have suffered as a result. The injustice you claim your children suffer flows from the decision by their school about the content of the school history curriculum. It does not flow directly from the Council decision not to include Cornish as an ethnic group in its response to DfES. The Ombudsman believes it would therefore not be appropriate to investigate further your complaints about it.

You have pointed out that the Key List of ethnic groups is used by various organisations including Ofsted, when measuring and comparing school pupils and assessing whether ethnic groups are disadvantaged. The Ombudsman considers that it is Ofsted to which you should complain that Cornish children are disadvantaged. He expects that, when Ofsted visit your children's school the inspection team will be conscious that there are children in school who are Cornish and will examine whether the schools choice of local history topics is appropriate for their learning needs. If Ofsted is not satisfied with the history curriculum it will require the school to alter it.

Before reaching a final decision, the Ombudsman would like to consider any further comments you would like to make. Unless I hear within ten days, I will assume you do not wish to pursue your complaint against the Council. 

Pat Saunders - Investigator 24/9/03

                                                   ***

Parental complaints to Ofsted have already been dismissed by the Chief Inspector misquoting, and underplaying, his powers. [See "Framework for the Inspection of Local Educational Authorities" HMI 345].

Parents also complained to the Standards Board for England about the discriminatory conduct of individual CCC members in relation to LEA decisions that adversely affect Cornish children. Although these genuine complaints came under SBE's terms of reference, they were not investigated, and all complaints were incoherently assessed and summarily dismissed by SBE officer Alex Wood.  

One consistent claim of the UK government is that aggrieved citizens can make their case before a court.
 
"If your rights have been breached by a public authority, you can take them to court and seek redress." Home Office Study Guide - Human Rights Act [HRG2 10/2000 p.7]
 
"The UK Race Relations Act protects those who have suffered racial discrimination and any individual who believes they have been discriminated against on grounds of ethnic or national origins can make their case before a court." Lord Filkin - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office  [Letter dated 18 March 2003]
 
The Cornish are an impoverished society. We cannot take legal action without some form of public funding. On behalf of my sons I made an application for funding to the Legal Services Commission [LSC] in respect of the above complaint. On 29th September funding was rejected because, so it is said, "there are other persons who might benefit from the proceedings who can reasonably be expected to fund the case" and "the claim does not have a significant wider public interest having regard to the prospects of success; the benefits do not justify the cost and a reasonable person would not litigate". In fact, without any consideration as to the true merits of the case,  the LSC utilised every possible reason to reject funding. The same thing happened to a similar application two years ago.   
 
Aside from the fact that "other persons might benefit" and "no public interest" actually contradict each other, the suggestion is that our expectations are unreasonable and that my sons and their friends should raise the necessary sums themselves. Are the governments claims about access to a court true for the Cornish? As to the merits of the case, we raised funds sufficient to obtain a barristers opinion. The barrister informed the LSC that this case has "good prospects of success". So who really controls access to justice in the UK, and does Article 6 European Convention on Human Rights [Right of access to a court] apply here?
 
We have asked the Commission for Racial Equality [CRE] to intervene on our behalf. This stands little chance of success after the CRE admitted to destroying all complaints from the Cornish. [Letter from Paul Riddle, Head of Formal Investigations,  to Paul Tyler MP 22 March 1999]  

Early in 2004 John Angarrack will finalise a full report on the situation the Cornish find themselves in. To reserve your copy email: cornubian@tiscali.co.uk 

This mail is not private or copyright. It can be forwarded at will.

END

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return to the HomePage welcome and introduction to the site  Are you lost?   Go to Main Index and Home Page