---

Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the principle behind the amendment and I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the right of teachers not to be vilified unjustifiably. I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, said on that. These sorts of allegations, if unjustified, can ruin a teacher’s life and his or her career—and the lives of his or her family. There is absolutely no justification for spreading unsupported allegations across the media. I should like the media to be somewhat more responsible in the way that they act in those circumstances. However, with a free press, this is a very difficult matter. I recall our discussions in this House in 2003 on the Sexual Offences Bill. We had a very thorough canter round the course on this issue with a different team. At the time, I was in the home affairs team but I recall it very well. We concluded that we could not legislate to fetter the rights of the free press; ultimately, it had to be left to them to do it themselves in the public interest. I think that some of them do it very well and that some of them do not. Having said that, I think that there are some problems with the amendment, although I give enormous credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She has tried to bend over backwards to satisfy the concerns of all and sundry on this matter. But there are still some problems. I gather that the amendment would affect academies. But of course the Secretary of State has an interest in academies and it is of the Secretary of State that one would ask permission for an exemption. That would be difficult because the Secretary of State would then have an interest in the case. We on these Benches believe that, if an exemption is to be given, it should be given by the court on the application of the police. We do not believe that it should be given by a Minister on the advice of civil servants. I am sure that noble Lords will be able to recall the difficulties that we had only a few months ago when there was a lot of publicity about certain people working in schools. Ministers had made decisions about that based on the advice of civil servants—all in good faith, I am sure. But, as a result, we now have the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, in which both Houses of Parliament have decided that it is more appropriate for such decisions to be made by an independent board of experts. I think that that should also happen in these cases. I do not think that it should go to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that accepting her amendment would be better than doing nothing. But the fact is that the Government have not done nothing. I, too, am grateful to the Minister, Jim Knight, for inviting me to the meeting at which we talked about what the Government are doing. A number of new practices now in place are designed to ensure that cases are thoroughly investigated as quickly as possible with appropriate inquiries of other adults about whether there is any corroboration of the child’s story. Rightly, one concern of the NSPCC is that only a very small proportion of all allegations is proved simply on the basis of children’s evidence. There is a better chance of genuine complaints being proved where there is some corroboration from adults. Therefore, it is important that appropriate and sensitive inquiries can be made. I found it significant that in the run-up to today’s debate we had objections from what one might consider to be both sides of the spectrum. The NSPCC came from the point of view of the protection of children and did not want to fetter any appropriate inquiries that might lead to the proving of genuine allegations. On the other hand, the NUT was very concerned about what is meant by anonymity and how far it goes. Are we talking about asking other members of staff at the school whether they can corroborate the child’s story? Are we going to the child’s parents or to a medical practitioner and right through the spectrum to the press? Of course, no one wants that. When both sides of the spectrum find difficulties with an amendment, you have to ask yourself whether it is the right one. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said that her proposals represent the most effective mechanisms. I believe that the most effective mechanisms are prevention and training for staff on what is appropriate behaviour with children. Staff need to know how they might inadvertently open themselves up to allegations; how they can protect themselves from that; how to create a culture of child protection within a school with everyone trained in what to look out for when a child has been abused; and, if a child is upset, how to notice what the problem is and to listen to the child effectively. I believe that those are the most effective mechanisms in preventing unwarranted allegations against teachers, which none of us wants to see. If allegations are made, we do not want to see teachers vilified any more widely than is appropriate for a proper investigation of the issue. I would like the new measures that the Government have put in place to speed up inquiries. I would also like a proper opportunity to evaluate whether those measures are working before we put in place a piece of legislation such as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is so conscientiously putting before us tonight. It is right that we should have time to see whether the new measures are working well and then return to all the experts and say, ““Right, do you think that in any way any child’s safety has been prejudiced by this set of measures? Do we need to go further?”” If they believe that we need to go further I, for one, would be very anxious to do so. If, on the other hand, many teachers feel that they have been vilified more widely than is necessary for a very narrow investigation of the issues, we also need to look again at that. As we have some problems with this amendment and as we have some new measures in place for which we need time to see whether they work, we shall not be supporting the amendment, although I repeat that we absolutely support the principle of anonymity, as far as is compatible with ensuring child safety, because the interests of the child are absolutely paramount.