Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
1 NOVEMBER 2004
MR STEVE
SINNOTT, DR
FIONA HAMMANS,
MS KATHRYN
JAMES AND
MS CHRIS
KEATES
Q140 Jonathan Shaw: On residential?
Ms Keates: On residential things
in terms of false allegations that have arisen, and there can
be a variety. It is not just sexual abuse of people, which is
what people immediately think of, it is actually physical abuse
and a number of other things.
Q141 Jonathan Shaw: You could provide
us with a number of incidences?
Ms Keates: I can provide you with
the statistics we have on false allegations and the number of
incidents on that, yes. [9]
Q142 Jonathan Shaw: Has that gone up?
Ms Keates: Over the time that
we have been tracking that, I would say that the proportion has
probably stayed the same of those, but the whole issue for us,
of course, of false allegations, is much wider than the visits.
Q143 Jonathan Shaw: So you are not sure
that the proportion has gone up; it has stayed about the same,
despite your press release, which says, "Society is increasingly
litigious and no longer appears to accept the concept of general
accident." Therefore, you are advising your members not to
go on these trips. So it is not going up, but it is increasing,
the problem is increasing. My concern is are you, is your union,
actually trying to find the solution to the problem or are you
the problem? You do these press releases prior to coming before
the Committee, you do not have the statistics to back them up
and then we see headlines like this from your press release. Are
you the problem?
Ms Keates: No, we are not the
problem. In fact, we have been raising these issues for a number
of years. That is not the first time there has been press coverage
of that. I am sorry if that has caused you concern. In our evidence,
in section 28, we actually list the work that we have now been
doing with the DfES on the issue of trying to find solutions to
some of the issues we have identified, and the issue of false
allegations is not the major issue in terms of the advice we are
giving to members, as we detail in our evidence. In fact, last
April the Government recognised the validity of some of our concerns
and, as we detail in our evidence, we have been working constructively
with DfES officials to look at a range of processes that might
actually start to minimise the risks and address some of the concerns
that we have about protecting staff that go on educational visits.
So we are not at all the problem, but we have a responsibility
to our members to give them clear advice about the risks they
might face. We also have an equal responsibility to try and raise
and put forward constructive suggestions as to how they can be
addressed, and we have certainly done that with the Government
and we have listed the areas that at the moment are in progress
with the DfES on the areas of concern that we have listed.
Q144 Jonathan Shaw: The final question
for you, Chris. What is your union's assessment of the main findings
of the Ofsted report Outdoor Education: Aspects of Good Practice?
What is your assessment of the main findings?
Ms Keates: As we said at the time
that was published, we recognise the value of outdoor education
and some of the activities that are taking place. The questions
that we pose are: are all of those activities ones that schools
and teachers and sports staff should be conducting, and, in that
context, there are still the risks posed that we have been raising.
We are not a union that is opposing educational visits—that
has never been our position and our evidence makes that quite
clear—but we have a responsibility to our members to point
out concerns and we have a responsibility to make sure that we
have put forward constructive suggestions to government as to
how to address that; and we believe we have done that.
Q145 Jonathan Shaw: There was very little
in your evidence to suggest that you embraced outdoor education.
It was mainly about the concerns about litigation and workforce.
I have to say, that is in stark contrast with the other trade
unions that talked about the benefits of outdoor education. As
I say, in your evidence there is a lot that talks about increasing
numbers and broad brush statements, and, when we ask you about
the specifics, the numbers are not going up?
Ms Keates: I did not realise that
what the Committee was inquiring into was for us to tell you the
benefits of outdoor education. I thought what you wanted us to
do was to highlight things that you might want to take on board
in your inquiry in terms of some of the issues that are facing
teachers that conduct these issues. I could have written several
pages about the benefits, but there is plenty of research and
well-documented evidence. My concern was to put to you issues
that you might want to consider and also to show the progress
that we were making on addressing some of those very taxing issues
for schools, for teachers and for our head teacher members.
Q146 Chairman: Can I just intervene.
You would not be surprised that this Committee is particularly
interested in your decision as a union to advise your members
not to participate?
Ms Keates: I understand that.
Q147 Chairman: That is very important.
In many ways it is quite a shocking decision. When was it made?
Ms Keates: It was made over four
years go, and we have reviewed it on an annual basis and raised
it with the Government on an annual basis, and it has arisen out
of casework, an increasing amount of casework that we were experiencing,
some with some very tragic incidents. Some of the very high profile
cases that have been in the press have involved NASUWT members
and we reviewed the advice and we included that as an annex, [10]which
shows that we give that strong advice but we also do provide a
check-list for people who may say, "Despite that advice,
we actually want to accompany these trips." We respect the
position of people who do that, and that is why we have not been
sitting back and saying we are not interested in educational visits,
that is why we have been trying to engage the Government in looking
at some of the things that we think can make sure that some of
these valuable activities can go ahead but also minimise the risk
to the staff that get involved in those. I think that is a perfectly
legitimate position for us as a union to take.
Q148 Helen Jones: Can I ask you to clarify
one thing in the written evidence you have given us? You say in,
I think, point six that society is increasingly litigious. We
understand that. It says, "It also fails either to understand
that perfect judgment, total attentiveness and faultless foresight
are beyond normal human capacity or to accept that in the best
ordered of activities things will occasionally go wrong. Schools,
therefore, find themselves increasingly vulnerable to the growing
compensation culture." I am not quite sure where you are
coming from here, because that is not what the law says. The law
does not expect perfect judgment, total attentiveness and faultless
foresight; it expects people to take the precautions that a reasonable
person would take. So how are you getting from one of those statements
to the other: because that seems to me to be legally faulty—untrue,
shall I say?
Ms Keates: No, it is not untrue.
Q149 Helen Jones: It is. That is not
what the law on negligence is?
Ms Keates: I am not arguing here
the law on negligence, I am arguing on the feedback we get in
terms of the casework that we have, reports that we get from our
head teacher members and reports from teachers about what they
are finding in terms of any accident, and, through your previous
questions to the DfES officials, you were raising the issue of
the growing litigious nature of the accident culture, and educational
visits are part of that. The feedback we get regularly from our
members and from local casework is that accidents, whether they
are on school trips, or in the school playgrounds, or in the classroom
can often at the very first stages, simply things that we would
probably at school ourselves have brushed off, a trip in the playground
now can result in a solicitor's letter because there are people
who are always looking for something to blame. That does not mean
that all of them go as far as proceedings, but it is a symptom
of a compensation culture that there is not a genuine accident
any more.
Q150 Helen Jones: I could write you a
solicitor's letter today, but just because you get one does not
mean people have to pay compensation. It might not be worth the
paper it is written on, frankly. So is not your dispute rather
with schools and LEAs who settle claims which have no real basis
in law at all rather than with the law as it stands?
Ms Keates: The issue . . . That
is a different point than whether we have—
Q151 Helen Jones: It is not?
Ms Keates: No; it is a different
point than whether we have evidence to sustain that there is a
growing compensation culture. The fact that letters are now sent
for things that at one time would have been dismissed as a childish
accident in a playground is evidence of the compensation culture.
The fact that people pay out, we are concerned and have raised
it where we have come across it with schools or local authorities
who, to avoid lengthy exchanges with solicitors, actually will
settle because that does actually fuel the compensation culture.
Q152 Helen Jones: But that does not mean
your members are being taken to court, does it?
Ms Keates: Our members quite often
are enjoined in the first stages of litigation. Whether they end
up in the full proceedings is an entirely different matter.
Q153 Helen Jones: If these are cases
that are being settled then your members are not being taken to
court, are they?
Ms Keates: It depends how the
investigation is conducted by the local authority, whether the
police are involved or where the people making the claims have
gone to. There is a whole variety of circumstances in which that
can happen. We do not make those kinds of comments lightly, and
this has been generally accepted as a problem, hence the Government
is actually working with us on some of these issues because they
have had reports from schools, and I am sure my colleagues here
can say about the pressure that many head teachers come under
from solicitors who are writing letters at the drop of a hat that
cause problems for schools. The other issue that we have, of course,
is that our members may not be subject to criminal proceedings
but can be subject to disciplinary investigations, which can be
extremely stressful.
Q154 Helen Jones: Have you any figures
for us again on the number of these cases where people are writing
to schools or sending them solicitor's letters after school trips
or any other sort of outdoor education and the numbers that are
settled, as opposed to the numbers that are totally spurious and
do not even get this couple of hundred pounds pay out?
Ms Keates: If I can say to you,
I think it would be very unusual for a school nowadays not to
have received at least one of these letters after some sort of
accident. That would be extremely unusual. What the figures are
in terms of settling, of course, that depends on a school and
local authority policy. Some local authorities will not settle
on these and they will take them forward. Only if our members
are involved would we have any details of that case, but my colleagues
in other unions have expressed the same concerns in meetings.
They may take different advice in terms of what they ask their
members to do, but the issue of teachers and other workers in
schools and head teachers becoming increasingly vulnerable to
legal action is a huge concern throughout the profession.
Q155 Helen Jones: So how many of these
cases have involved your members recently?
Ms Keates: I have not got those
figures. I will provide the figures for you. [11]
Q156 Chairman: The reason we are pushing
you on this, it is fundamentally important to our inquiry, but
on the one hand you said no cooperation. If all your members took
your advice, basically out of school activity would cease, would
they not, more or less? If they took your advice.
Ms Keates: Yes, and, of course,
one of the things I think we all regret is the fact that the number
of visits for some of the things that are curriculum related and
have an educational validity, there is more concern and caution
about taking those now. That is why we think it is important that
you do have this inquiry, because one of the things we propose
is supporting schools through local authorities with a check-list
that can look at making sure that the risks are minimised by the
trips that have been taken have got that direct curriculum—
Q157 Chairman: Let us continue. What
would make you as a union change your mind in terms of what assurances
the Government could give or LEAs could give, or a combination
of factors? This is a four-year policy. We have had it for a long
time, although it comes as a surprise, I see from the Daily
Express. You have never had it!
Ms Keates: Indeed.
Q158 Chairman: They are not that clever
at the Daily Express, obviously, because they blame the
Government for this policy, but, tell us, we are trying to find
out what would change your mind and make you cooperate?
Ms Keates: All of the items we
have listed in section 28 of our evidence. The consistent monitoring
of the visits, the support from their employer for teachers who
actually take these visits, because they are actually abandoned
when litigation starts or there is a particular problem. We would
like a much firmer application of the Government guidance on monitoring
of the educational validity, because again there is a lack of
consistency.
Q159 Chairman: There is a difficulty
there, Chris, is there not, because evidence that this Committee
has had said there is nothing like the joy of seeing a child who
has seen the sea for the first time, and you might say that for
a child from a deprived background a visit to the Blackpool pleasure
beach is wonderful.
9 Ev 89. Back
10
Ev 75. Back
11
Ev 89. Back
| 
