---

Education and Inspections Bill

moved Amendment No. 124A: After Clause 91, insert the following new clause- ““ANONYMITY OF STAFF FACING ALLEGATIONS (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing that where it is alleged that a relevant person in a maintained school providing education for persons under 18 years of age has committed a criminal offence against or related to a child that person shall be afforded anonymity unless and until he is charged with an offence. (2) Regulations under this section may include exemption from a requirement to afford anonymity to a person where the Secretary of State considers such provision- (a) necessary to prevent a person committing an offence or fleeing after having done so, or (b) necessary to ensure the effective conduct of a criminal investigation. (3) In this section a ““relevant person”” means a teacher or other member of staff, including a volunteer. (4) Regulations shall not be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”” The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 124A, I ask myself, as I have done again and again during our debates: who on earth would be a teacher? We return to this much-debated and, to my mind, hugely important amendment. It will enable teachers to retain their anonymity where they have been accused of committing a criminal offence by a pupil in class. Out of 2,016 cases investigated between 1995 and 2002, only 4 per cent of all allegations against teachers have resulted in a conviction. We live in a low-risk culture, where we believe that risks are so great that they should not be taken. That is right; we should never risk our children’s welfare. But neither should we therefore risk the trust of our teachers. Male teachers are dissuaded from the profession, which is hardly surprising as 70 per cent of all allegations are made against male teachers. Following the last stage of the Bill, my colleagues and I met the Minister from another place to discuss the implications of the amendment. I am very grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, for that opportunity. Having considered the representations of the Minister, Members on other Benches and the NSPCC, we have revised our amendment so that it will strike the most effective mechanism for protecting teachers from allegations that ruin careers and lives, which leaves enough flexibility to carry out effective police investigations. We have considered the amendment extremely carefully over the past few months. There are some crucial differences. The new version of the amendment provides for the order to be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, ensuring parliamentary scrutiny. It applies only to charges for criminal offences, not internal disciplinary matters. The amendment includes a power to include exemptions where necessary—that is, where the accused is in danger of committing further offences or fleeing after having done so and where the police need to identify the accused during their investigations, for example when seeking witnesses. I believe that we have addressed the main concerns of the NSPCC. The Secretary of State’s powers under the amendment are completely different from the arrangements that surrounded List 99. The Secretary of State’s involvement in regulations made under the amendment extends to the guidance that the Minister has already introduced. The Secretary of State could not make a judgment on individual cases, as with List 99; rather, he or she would have a power to introduce a general framework for anonymity. Specific exemption could be brought by those with expertise or local knowledge, such as police or social workers. We recognise the need to leave schools and police forces the absolute independence to deal with allegations as they, in their professional expertise, see fit; but anonymity will protect the future of thousands who face unfair allegations and the crippling effect of ever-increasing trial by media. The NSPCC has expressed concerns that the amendment would create a two-tier system under which teachers and school staff were afforded anonymity until they were charged, but not those who work with children in other areas. My response is: just because the amendment does not afford anonymity to all who work with children does not mean that we should do nothing. We would welcome measures that protected all people who work with children from the tragic effects of false allegations and the destruction of reputation, but I must make one point absolutely clear. Teachers work with children in classrooms. Their relationship with children is entirely different from that of a carer or someone in another position outside school. There are points to be scored from teachers in school. I am sure that noble Lords will remember that from their own school days. We are not considering the entire social service but teachers and workers in schools. We have worked incredibly hard to provide what we believe will protect teachers and children from the intrusive effects of publicity in the uncertain stages of a criminal allegation, and will lessen the risk to teachers of false allegations by taking away the incentive to make them. We hope that these measures will treat serious and tragic situations with the seriousness and privacy that they deserve where those allegations are founded. I beg to move.