[back to previous text]

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.
Mr. Gibb: Thank you.
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.
 
Previous Contents
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 11 March 2009