Q
454Mr.
Gibb: Do you have a time when that might be
available for the Committee to scrutinise
it? Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: It is unlikely that it will be ready in
time for the
Committee.
Q
455Mr.
Gibb: There is a story in The Daily
Telegraph this morning saying that schools cannot look at CCTV
footage to see who stole a child’s iPod, for example. Is that
not the sort of nonsense that is preventing teachers
from being able to enforce discipline and good behaviour in their
schools? If they cannot even look at the CCTV coverage to see which
child it was, how are we going to instil discipline and good behaviour
in
schools? Jim
Knight: Different people have different views in the
extent to which you should believe all you read in newspapers. I am not
an assiduous reader of The Daily Telegraph and I have not seen
that story yet. I am sure that it will be brought to my attention at
some point in the day. If it is relevant to the proceedings of the
Committee, when we get to the relevant clause I would be happy to reply
to that question.
Q
456Mr.
Gibb: I will table an amendment to help you,
Minister.
My final
question is on clause 47 and relates, I am afraid, to concerns from
another newspaper, The Times Educational Supplement, which I
think the Minister reads assiduously. A concern has been expressed that
schools could end up paying for the provisions of clause 47
because of the demands on money to fulfil the duties set out in the
clause. Now, local authorities will be responsible for the education of
young offenders. What assurances can the Ministers give schools that
they will not have to contribute to the funding for
that? Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: As I am sure you are aware, at present
the education of young offenders is funded by the Ministry of Justice.
That funding will be transferring to local authorities to enable them
to fulfil their duties under the
clauses.
Q
457Mr.
Laws: Just to mop up a couple of points from earlier,
including one from Annette Brooke’s questioning, did I hear you
say that because Ministers are not too sure whether clause 138 provides
a new power, you will let the Committee know about that before the
clause is debated in Committee? Did you give any undertaking to Annette
Brooke that we might see the legal advice that was supplied to Sir Alan
Steer on the general power to search, because it would be useful for
the Committee to see that before dealing with that clause?
You will be
aware that a couple of amendments have been tabled to clause 229 that
do not give a general power to search, but that would widen the power
to cover items, for example, that threatened potential or imminent harm
to pupils; another Tory amendment refers to items banned by the school.
Presumably you have not taken any legal advice on whether that would be
an acceptable, wider power that would not have the same implications as
a general power. Perhaps you could answer that last question before the
two opening
questions. Jim
Knight: Obviously, to some extent those are things
that we can discuss when we get to the debates on those
clauses.
Mr.
Laws: I was keen to get to some of those before if we
can. Jim
Knight: I am always keen to respond to your
enthusiasm. As far as the two questions on clause 138 are concerned, I
am happy to try to let you and other members of the Committee know
whether that is a new power. You will not be surprised to hear that we
have no intention of publishing the legal advice, but I tried
to
give a proper explanation in response to Annette’s question, and
no doubt that will be debated further when we get to the relevant
clause.
Q
458Mr.
Laws: Sarah, is any legal advice available or has any been
taken on whether something that stands between proscribing individual
items and a general power to search would be acceptable and might be
more sensible in the light of the debate we have had today? You can
take a bottle of Cointreau into a school and it can be searched for,
but a head teacher cannot search for hard porn, which seems rather
odd. Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am not sure whether we took legal
advice on the hypothetical items you have suggested, but as far as I am
aware we took legal advice on the ones we had specified and on the more
general
power.
Q
459Mr.
Laws: May I ask two quick questions so as to leave time
for Alison to come in? Will academies be exempt from clause 194, which
relates to
complaints? Jim
Knight: Did you just say that that was a very general
question about clause
194?
Q
460Mr.
Laws: It is a very specific question. Clause
194 deals with the complaints procedure for
schools. Jim
Knight: Clause 194, as it is written, does not apply
to academies. Obviously, we have the power set out in clause 207 to
amend the meaning of “qualifying school”, which would
allow us to include academies, should we wish to do
so.
Q
461Mr.
Laws: So if you are complaining about an academy issue,
you cannot go to the local government
ombudsman? Jim
Knight: Not as we have set out the provisions.
Obviously, academies have to have a complaints process that they should
set out for
parents.
Q
462Mr.
Laws: Why should parents and children at academies have
less protection than children in other schools in relation to the
complaints process that you want to
have? Jim
Knight: Certainly, academies need to have a robust
complaints procedure, but whether we should apply those new parental
complaints procedures to academies from the off is essentially down to
the very difficult work that they do. Generally, they are turning
around schools in the most challenging of
circumstances.
Q
463Mr.
Laws: A huge number of schools with the same issues are
not
academies. Jim
Knight: By and large, it is academies that are
turning around the most challenging schools. The academy projects that
I approve are those where the strongest intervention is needed to turn
around long-standing
problems.
Q
464Mr.
Laws: Are you saying that schools that need a large amount
of intervention essentially need some sort of exemption from the
complaints process because it might be too
onerous? Jim
Knight: No. If you just give me the opportunity to
develop my point properly, I am saying that we are just setting up the
new parent’s complaints process and we want to allow academies
and us to decide later whether it is appropriate for them to come into
that. We
have left the door open. Most academies have only just been started and,
right now, we want them, first and foremost, to focus on the job at
hand, which is to turn around
standards.
Mr.
Laws: Okay. I am not convinced but I think that I had
better
finish.
Q
465Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): I have a general
question that picks up on a sweeping statement made in this Committee
that would worry me if I was the parent of a disabled child or young
person. Clare Tickell of Action for Children said that a golden thread
specific to disability is missing throughout the Bill. I would welcome
the Minister’s comments on whether there is ground for those
concerns. Jim
Knight: Obviously the Bill is wide-ranging and covers
many areas. So many of its wonderful clauses are about institutional
reorganisation. To have a golden thread running through all of that
relating to children with disabilities would not be easy. The important
question is whether the changes will improve things for children with
special educational needs and disabilities. I am confident that they
will. The
changes to early years, such as making children’s centres
statutory and the proposals on inspection arrangements, are as
important for disabled children as for anybody else. We have an
expectation that Sure Start children’s centres, while a
universal service, focus on families with disadvantages. If you have a
disability, that is a significant disadvantage. You then flow through
to the measures on the regulation of exams, which will ensure that
exams are accessible to people with any disability, and specific
measures on people with learning disabilities and on
transport. The
overall reason for making the break at 19 and changing commissioning
for 16 to 19 is to extend the opportunities for everyone, including
those with disabilities. It is particularly those with special
educational needs who miss out. The proportion of people with special
educational needs is much higher in pupil referral units and among
those in custody. The changes to pupil referral units and offenders
education will benefit such people in
particular.
Q
466Alison
Seabeck: How do these concerns relate to
apprenticeships? Mr.
Simon: On the adult side, we should remember that the
chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency is bound by the
Disability Discrimination Act 2005. Clause 101 puts a duty
on him to assist “the effective participation” of
learners undertaking apprenticeships, for example. In effect, that
means that learners with special needs will be funded and supported so
that their special requirements are
met.
Alison
Seabeck: Thank
you.
The
Chairman: That is just in time because we are one minute
off reaching our allotted time for questioning the witnesses. I remind
Committee members that we will reconvene this afternoon at 4
o’clock in Committee Room
10. 1
pm The
Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order
No.88). Adjourned
till this day at Four
o’clock.
| 
