---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I will not press the amendment at this stage, but I am not totally happy with what he said. Guidance on a website is all very well, but it is also all very theoretical. It is not really a substitute for the sort of training where teachers can discuss the issues and share their experiences, best practice, techniques for de-escalation and so on. If you are going to put a teacher in a situation where something dangerous might arise, you really must make sure that they are properly trained to address it, even if it is not very likely. I used to be a science teacher, as noble Lords will know, and I would have hated to go into the laboratory without having been trained in how to respond if a child behaved dangerously with a piece of scientific equipment, or if a child had a fit in an environment where there was equipment with which they could hurt themselves. I am pleased to say such a situation never arose, but I would not have felt confident to go into a laboratory without such training. The more we are successful in including children with severe difficulties in the mainstream—with all the benefits that can provide for certain children—the more we need to be aware that such difficult situations can arise and that all teachers have a right to receive proper training. Although I accept what the Minister said in good faith, I am not quite sure that it is enough. My noble friend and I will consult TreeHouse and the National Autistic Society, and we will consider whether we might want to bring this back at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 124 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]