This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel
Record of Meeting
Date: 21 October 2013 Meeting No: 40
Present | Deputy J. M. Maçon, Chairman Connétable M. P. S. Le Troquer, Vice Chairman Deputy M. Tadier Deputy G. Southern |
In attendance | M. Haden, Scrutiny Officer |
Ref Back | Agenda matter | Action |
| 1. Minutes The Minutes of the meetings held on 30th September 2013 were approved and signed. |
|
Item 5 30.09.13 516/1(51) | 2. Quarterly hearing with Minister for Education, Sport and Culture The Panel received the Minister for Education Sport and Culture, together with the Director of Education, Head of Careers and Learning Support and Manager, Trackers Apprenticeship Scheme. The Panel discussed the following issues:
The Panel also discussed the following issues in private:
|
|
| 3. Topic proposal: Review of Education Department's investigation of incident at Le Rocquier School The Panel considered a request to investigate the manner in which the Education Department had dealt with an incident at Le Rocquier School in which a student had been injured as a result of a teacher discharging a starting pistol. The Panel was mindful that the Scrutiny Code of Practice precluded any involvement in a disciplinary case (7.14) or a matter which fell within a complaints procedure (7.11). The incident, though serious, was not in itself evidence of a systematic failure of a policy by the Department, leading to the exposure of students to continued danger. Moreover, the matter had already been taken up by an independent States member who had asked a series of questions in the States Assembly. The Panel agreed to inform the proposer that unless there was |
|
| evidence of systematic failure by the department in the conduct of child protection cases, it was unable to intervene in this matter. |
|