Warwickshire County Council expects to conclude its SEND storm investigation this week but key questions on the process behind it remain unanswered. 

The council confirmed on Friday of last week that it anticipates publishing the findings of an independent investigation into three councillors who instigated hundreds of complaints by making comments on special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) provision in Warwickshire. 

Ex-portfolio holder for children and families Cllr Jeff Morgan questioned whether some children put forward for SEND assessments were "just really badly behaved" and in need of "some form of strict correction".

That had followed Cllr Brian Hammersley asking whether a surge in demand was down to "something in the water", while Cllr Clare Golby later referred to social media pages where "families are swapping tips on how to get their children diagnosed".

The council's update on the investigation said 281 complaints had referenced all three councillors with a "representative sample" of 26 selected for interview. 

It confirmed the sample "was selected by identifying the first 26 complaints referencing all three councillors that were received by date and time order" with "no right of appeal for those complainants not included".

But it insisted: "We can provide assurance that the independent investigator has reviewed all complaints received as part of the process to ensure that no key themes were missed from the scope of the investigation."

It was also confirmed the investigation, conducted by Claire Ward of Birmingham law firm Anthony Collins Solicitors, will cost £24,225. 

Queries filed by the Local Democracy Reporting Service included whether there were any more complaints that did not reference all three councillors, or against any other councillors or staff members, on what date the council received the 26th complaint referenced in its update, when the decision was made to use the first 26, who made that decision, whether other complainants were informed individually that their submissions had not been selected and when it had received the latest complaint on this matter.

A member of the council's communications team fielded the questions but subsequently replied with: "I'm sorry but no further update is available."

No further explanation was offered. 

When this was questioned, the LDRS was told: "I don't have the answers to your questions."