---

Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 118: After Clause 87, insert the following new clause- ““PREVENTION OF BULLYING The governing body and head teacher or principal of a maintained secondary school, Academy, sixth form college, further education college, city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts shall have a duty to establish effective policies to prevent bullying and ensure the safety and well-being of all pupils.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 is a return to the issue of bullying, which we debated in Committee. On that occasion, our amendment required a school to develop a policy on homophobic bullying. We had enormous support from across the House, including from the Minister, about the importance of this matter and the need for it to be addressed by all schools. All noble Lords agreed that it is unacceptable that a child should be bullied on the basis of his sexual orientation, or any other characteristic, come to that. However, many noble Lords encouraged us to come back with an amendment that was wider in its scope and addressed the whole issue of bullying. That is what we have done. On 25 July, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said: "““Bullying is unacceptable towards any child””." She went on to say: "““While we very much support the aims of the amendment, we are concerned that it may be seen as singling out a particular group””." The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in the same column of Hansard: "““Homophobic bullying is nasty, sinister, and cruel and can have terrible results. Of that there is no doubt. But I strongly believe that we should all be concerned about the strategic issue of bullying””.—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1692.]" The noble Lord asked whether I would consider withdrawing my amendment and coming back with one that addressed the strategic issues. Support for such an approach also came from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In his reply, the Minister agreed that, "““bullying in all its forms is one of the great evils that our schools have to confront, and we have a good deal further to go before we can claim to have confronted it successfully””." However, it became clear that he thought that the Bill confronted the matter adequately without the benefit of my amendment when he said later in his speech: "““Clause 82(1)(b) requires a head teacher to determine measures to be taken with a view to,""‘encouraging good behaviour and respect for others on the part of pupils and, in particular, preventing all forms of bullying among pupils’””." He told us: "““That provision means what it says. Head teachers must ensure that their school’s behaviour policy deals with all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying and bullying relating to race, religion and culture, as well as cyber-bullying””—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1694.]" and so on. The problem is that, when I looked at the Minister’s words, I realised that that responsibility is only in one direction. It relates to action that the head must take to affect the behaviour of the pupils. But pupil behaviour is only part of the picture. We need schools to have a policy that addresses the behaviour of everyone in the school community: pupils, teachers, support staff, caretakers and everyone who might come into the school as part of its extended school format. The clause quoted by the Minister does not do that; our amendment does. It would ensure that policies are in place to prevent bullying from wherever it came or on whatever basis it lies. The school would need to foster a culture of mutual respect among all members of its community—both adults and children. Noble Lords may remember that we had an amendment along those lines in Committee. Without Amendment No. 118, the job is only half-done by the Bill. The Minister assured us, "““my department is committed to providing comprehensive guidance on bullying that is driven by prejudice””." He went on to say: "““As well as advice on dealing with specific incidents, the guidance in respect of homophobic bullying will focus on prevention, including promoting a school environment in which homophobic bullying does not occur””.—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1695.]" We quite agree with that. That is what we want to do, but we feel that the Bill as it stands only does half the job. The guidance is not quite enough. Without our amendment, the school may see the matter only as a part of its policy on the behaviour of pupils, without all the positive, mutually respectful things that we all want to see in the whole school community. In other words, it addresses the negatives without putting in the positives. We would like to put the positives in, too. I beg to move.