Q
63Jim
Knight: We heard from our witnesses this morning a
distinct lack of enthusiasm for a complaints service. I would just be
interested in hearing from all three of you as to whether or not you
think we needed a complaints service that is independent of schools and
Government. Clem
Henricson: Is this for the parents’ complaints
about
schools?
Clem
Henricson: I am disappointed that your witnesses this
morning were against this, because we are fully supportive of an
independent complaints authority, basically the local government
ombudsman, and of making it a point of entry for parents and as
accessible as possible. Again, we have some issues about clarity and
tightening up. I also have a concern about the time frame, which is 12
months from the incident. If you are going through a process of the
complaint going to the school, the governor and then to the complaints
authority, or LGO, I think that there would be many occasions when it
will not hit that 12-month
mark. I
think that you would have to recognise the expense of the enterprise.
Obviously you want to get information to parents in the most accessible
way, and to children, but you also might want to consider the need for
an advocate function. If you are introducing mediation and
reconciliation facilities too, they all cost.
So it is an
aspiration that we certainly favour and it would be very useful in
easing parents’ concerns in many ways, particularly with a
graduated approach and the use of mediation. However, I just have some
anxiety as to whether you can implement it, because of its
cost. I
have just one other thought on this subject. There is something about
the collection of the data and I would have thought that one of the
useful points of collection or analysis would be to establish what
complaints consist of, and not just establishing whether or not the
system is cost-effective.
Q
64Jim
Knight: Do you have an instinct about what sort of
complaints are most
likely? Clem
Henricson: I do not, so it would be wrong of me to
say. That is not an area that we have worked in. It might be a future
piece of
work. Anne
Longfield: My response would be that no complaints
process is a good thing. I can imagine that some would say that it
would not be, but they might be working within the system where it
might make things more difficult. It is part of a wider opening up of
schools and the education system to parents who often, as their
children go through school find themselves increasingly estranged from
the system. When you collect small children from a nursery you are told
what greens they had during the day, when they slept, what they laughed
at and every thing. That goes completely over the school time. When
children get to secondary school by year 10 or 11 there is little
communication for many. That is a shame. Children do not benefit as a
result.
This is part
of wider system of communication with parents, be it e-mails, parent
meetings with teachers and the like. It is also important because it is
an overt and visible message that the education system needs to be
outward facing. It is there to serve children and parents. I know that
that is what most teachers, hand on heart, would say they are there
for. But sometimes the system takes over and it feels very difficult
for parents to get a way in. Turning it very overtly out in that way
gives a strong message that it has to be outward
facing.
Q
65Jim
Knight: Briefly, do you agree
Clare? Clare
Tickell: I completely support that. I just raise the
point of making sure that there is clarity for children in local
authority care, who may have the complex relationship of a corporate
parent and could potentially have a complaint investigated by the body
about which they are complaining. There needs to be a way getting that
sorted.
Q
66Jim
Knight: I have one final supplementary for you all, which
is probably two questions in one. Do you think the local government
ombudsman is the right vehicle as the basis of a complaints service? Do
you think pupils should be able to complain as well as
parents? Clem
Henricson: Yes. I have read other responses to the
consultation as well and there seems to be a general endorsement of the
LGO as an appropriate body. It is sufficiently independent. It is
certainly preferable, we thought, to the local authority doing it.
Clearly this is a step forward from expecting people to go to the
Secretary of State. It is a very good move. As with other aspects of
the Bill, there needs to be a bit more clarity about the systems that
you require a complainant to go through before getting there. That is
not specified. It is in other documentation, but it is not in the Bill.
Something would be useful
there.
Q
67Jim
Knight: And
pupils? Clem
Henricson: Yes, I think you have to have something
for pupils, but you need an awful lot of support for them and an
acceptance that you take out what is
frivolous. Anne
Longfield: It has to be pupils, but you have to
manage what gets to what stage. You have to acknowledge that an awful
lot could be dealt with within a school
system. Again this is an overt way of putting that sort of emphasis into
the culture of the school. It has to be pupils within the wider system
as
well. Clare
Tickell: I agree with the local government ombudsmen.
It is not sufficiently different or special. If we are doing what Anne
is describing, which is to make this as normal and accountable as
everything else, it makes complete sense. Why would you make a special
case? But we need the
sensitivity.
Q
68Mrs.
Miller: Two final quick questions: the first is for Clare
and Anne. Given that both your organisations run children’s
centres, are you clear how the new inspection will work? The 4Children
briefing said that you would support it but that you were not happy
about duplication. How much involvement have you had and how much do
you know about the new inspection service?
Anne
Longfield: First, the basic principle is that it is
good. It needs to be high quality and that needs to be embraced. The
children’s centre is a new entity so it does not fit neatly
within the inspection regimes that are in place, but there are
inspection regimes in place that are quite cumbersome and quite
detailed, particularly in early years and child care. I am not clear
how it would work. That is an area for clarity. We would not want to
see it duplicating others and just becoming a third or a fourth
inspection. Nor would we want to get to the stage where it replaced all
of those and diluted what was in, for instance, early years and child
care, where there is a very distinct and detailed inspection. We would
not want to see that replaced by a cover-all that does not put in the
same safeguards on quality. So, there is a lot there to work through.
Discussions are underway, but they are not very far advanced or
widespread to my knowledge. We need to ensure the highest quality
across the piece. That needs to be the
aim. Clare
Tickell: I completely agree, and I suggest that it is
quite possible that Ofsted does not understand this properly. We have
not been terribly involved—4Children has as far as I am
aware—and so it would be good if Ofsted came to talk to us to
develop its understanding of exactly what a good children’s
centre looks like and how it safeguards
that.
Q
69Mrs.
Miller: I have a quickie for Clem. One of the elephants in
the room today is health. None of us has really talked about health and
the problems that there are sometimes on the ground in involving health
in children’s trust boards and children’s centres. I
think that you have done some general work in that area. Could you, or
any of the other witnesses, help us to understand how we could get
health working more effectively as part of delivering for children and
families? Clem
Henricson: On the ground, we have been strong
advocates for developing the health visitor service. That has
potential—ensuring that it is represented in children’s
centres rather than just health centres. Regarding the
children’s trusts, we have certainly highlighted the
difficulties that have been experienced because they appear alienated
and are not being involved in the same way. We would advocate inclusion
of the mental health service on the children’s trust board
because of the particular issues that arise for young people and mental
health services. I am afraid that placing an obligation on the health
service to be an active partner and to co-operate will
probably help. Looking at some higher representation might give it a bit
of emphasis. You are taking from the local authority what would be the
commensurate level in the health service. The other reservation that I
have about the children’s trusts is that there should be more
locally elected representation. It is fairly limited. Something to look
at might be how far you can get high up in the accountability structure
of the health
service.
Q
70Mrs.
Miller: Does anybody else have anything to add on health?
You both effectively work with health, do you
not? Anne
Longfield: We do. A lot of the relationships that are
in place are there because of long developments and partnerships on the
ground—operational rather than strategic partnerships. It is a
case of rocketing children and young people up the strategic health
agenda and ensuring that that is plumbed into the system at the
appropriate high level, that health promotion, public health and
children are also plumbed in, that the budgets for health follow, and
that the status and requirements of children and young people are
mirrored in the health strategy. Until that strategic emphasis and the
ability and requirement for budgets to follow are there, that remains
something that has to be reinvented 100 times on the ground. That would
be my step
forward. Clare
Tickell: We are teetering on the brink of a very deep
recession and the most important thing to remember is that early
intervention will be absolutely critical and key. It talks to health in
a way that some of the conversations thus far have not. I agree with
Anne that there is something about getting the language sufficiently
understood by both partners so that they can each see the relevance of
the other. That is about being clear about the outcomes that go behind
what we are seeking to do here and ensuring that people are signed up
to them. It then begins to fall into
place.
The
Chairman: Thank you. Regrettably we have run out of time,
but I thank you for your
contributions. 3
pm
Q
71The
Chairman: If you are sitting comfortably, we will begin.
We have a lot to fit into a short space of time. I plead with you to
keep your answers brief. It is important that as many Members as
possible get to put their questions. Will you begin by introducing
yourselves in turn
please? Christina
McAnea: I am Christina McAnea, the head of the
education work force unit at Unison, which is the largest union for
school support
staff. Brian
Strutton: I am Brian Strutton, the GMB national
secretary for public
services. Peter
Allenson: I am Peter Allenson, the national organiser
for public services at
Unite. Joan
Binder: I am Joan Binder, the vice-chairman of the
Foundation and Aided Schools National Association. I am an elected
governor member of the national committee. One of my key remits on that
committee is to undertake employer function issues on behalf of schools
where the governing body is the
employer. David
Algie: I am David Algie from Local Government
Employers.
The
Chairman: The first question is from Mr. John
Hayes.
Q
72Mr.
Hayes: Clauses 79 to 91 will set up the Skills Funding
Agency and the National Apprenticeship Service. There have been
complaints from previous witnesses that the system is overly
bureaucratic. It was described on Tuesday as a “bureaucratic
muddle”. Today we have heard concerns from other union
representatives about the complexity and bureaucracy associated with
the Bill. What is your view on that? I do not mind who chips
in—all or some of
you. Brian
Strutton: I am afraid that you have caught us on an
area that is not our expertise and which we have not prepared for. I do
not have an answer on that point. If you want a view, I am sure that we
could go away and consider it, but we do not know about that
area.
Q
73Mr.
Hayes: All right. Let us move on. You will know that the
Bill focuses largely on education for 16 to 19-year-olds. Something
that your members are concerned about in the economic downturn is
retraining routes back into employment. The National Institute of Adult
Continuing Education has described this as a missed opportunity to
re-engage adults and provide entry points for retraining. How important
are training opportunities and reskilling in the downturn and what
provisions would you like to see to facilitate
that? Christina
McAnea: We are certainly very supportive of the
proposals on apprenticeships and provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. We
are happy that local government is being given a greater role in
co-ordinating the process. What we would like to see is tied up with
other provisions in the Bill, such as the right to train. We would like
a clearer right for people in employment to access training. Many
members of the unions represented here are those in local government
with the fewest formal qualifications. When you look at what happens
across employers—it is the same in local government and in
schools—only 1 per cent. of the money spent goes to those staff
who do not have a degree level qualification or equivalent. Almost all
the money is spent on staff who already have some formal qualification.
We would want a clearer right to train and a greater focus on how to
upskill people who are coming in or are not in the workforce at the
moment, with a level 2 or above
qualification. Joan
Binder: May I just come in on the schools
perspective? I apologise if I am not au fait with all the clauses in
the Bill. I came back from six weeks’ holiday at the weekend and
I have been trying to get my head round those clauses I particularly
want to focus on.
From the
school perspective, we have welcomed the introduction of the new
vocational diploma as a means of encouraging participation in learning,
particularly learning focused on the next stage of employment or
training.
I do not know
whether there is anything on this point in the Bill—it might be
inappropriate to mention and it is anecdotal—but we often find
in school that not enough credence is given to those vocational
qualifications in terms of presenting data about
schools.
| 
