---

Education and Inspections Bill

I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), expressed through this new clause, to protect teachers and other members of staff from the damaging effects of allegation. I share that concern and I am keenly aware, through my experiences as a Member of Parliament, a parent and a child, of the profound effect that false or unfounded allegations can have on a person’s health, family or career—the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave one such profound example—and of how publicity can then make the impact of those allegations much more severe. Equally, it has been my experience as a governor that some allegations of abuse are true. Being abused by a person in a position of trust and authority, such as a teacher, can have a similarly devastating effect on a child. It is because we have to strike that balance that we must be very careful in seeking to address this problem, which Members in all parts of the House want to address. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) quoted the National Union of Teachers asking the Government to use this provision to find a workable way of protecting teachers from false allegation. We should continue to improve the guidance and to try to find a workable method, but it is certainly a complicated issue, as I shall try to sketch out. In 2004, my Department’s five-year strategy for children and learners included a commitment to defending teachers from false allegations, to ensuring that teachers are not subjected to damaging delays where their integrity is in question, and to ensuring that swift action can be taken against those who made false allegations. That strategy was informed by research, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked. The Department has in recent years put in place an audit of allegations against education staff, and the results have been published. I will make sure that a copy of those results is made available in the House Library for the hon. Lady and other Members to peruse. In 2003-04, for example, the bulk of allegations were resolved outside the courts. Of the 2 per cent. that were considered by the courts, 71 resulted in conviction. According to the research, some 23 per cent. of cases resulted in disciplinary action within schools. Following discussions with the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, my Department consulted on new arrangements for handling allegations against teachers and other education staff. Last November, we issued guidance on this issue in England, to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. Governing bodies of all schools and further education institutions must take account of this guidance in making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The revised version of ““Working Together to Safeguard Children””, issued this April in England, also contains overarching guidance that can be applied to allegations against anyone working with children in any setting. It is important that we think about other people who work with children. In my own constituency, for example, there has been a series of allegations against prison officers working at a young offenders institution, which have been equally distressing for the people concerned. As drafted, the new clause—I accept that the hon. Member for Havant said that the drafting may not be perfect—would apply only to teachers, other staff and volunteers in schools and further education institutions. However, as I said, they are not the only people who can be affected by allegations. Publicity about an allegation of abuse can have equally devastating effects for anyone who works with children. Department for Education and Skills guidance states that every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality while an allegation is being investigated, unless and until a person is charged with an offence. But it also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances, the police may need to disclose the identity of a person under investigation. Publicity can be helpful to an accused person in gathering support and bringing forward evidence on his or her behalf. There have been examples where responsible investigative journalism has brought to light cases of abuse. Freedom to report cases is an essential part of our criminal justice system, and we must take it very seriously. The present system of self-regulation, overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, provides safeguards—no doubt, not perfect—against the publication of inaccurate or misleading information. Certainly, hon. Members have reason to say that those safeguards might not be perfect. The PCC has recently revised its guidance on such matters. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said about the police. ACPO has strengthened its guidance to police forces, aimed at preventing people from being identified if they are not charged with a criminal offence. Subsection (3) of the new clause sets out that policies and procedures should provide for disciplinary action to be taken against any teacher or member of staff who discloses any information about an allegation without the express permission of the governing body. Schools are free to include that sort of detail in their policies on allegations, and governing bodies are responsible for ensuring that such policies are in place. Governors should bear in mind the fact that the use of reasonable force by teachers will be allowed under clause 85. I hope that that will avoid some of the examples of unfounded allegations of bodily harm and assault that have been highlighted in the press and to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. On the basis of what he said, it sounded as though those cases involved the use of reasonable force. I hope that other measures in the Bill will also help in that respect. Legislation is already in place that permits the suspension of governors for up to six months if they breach confidentiality, and appointed governors can also be removed. I respect greatly the reason why the issue has been raised. We have had a useful and, I hope, sensitive debate. I do not think that the House should want to divide on the issue, because I do not think that we are divided about its essence. We all agree with the intent and essence of what the Opposition are trying to do with the new clause.