Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Buscombe (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 24 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Education and Inspections Bill.


Education and Inspections Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank noble Lords who have been kind enough to support the amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about her concerns regarding this amendment. I feel from the closing sentences of the Minister’s response that I am doing the right thing about my concerns. There is concern about the freedom of the press and the public interest, but one’s career, family life, home life and whole future can be utterly destroyed within weeks, within days, of a false allegation, let alone three months. We must do something. We are haemorrhaging teachers; they are leaving the profession because of this situation. It has become almost cool for kids to accuse teachers of something as a way of getting back at them. I believe that we are on the right path in trying to introduce statutory protection for teachers. I appreciate that it is important to create a culture of protection in our schools, but we are already doing that. We should remember the numbers: there were 2,016 cases between 1995 and 2002, and only4 per cent of them led to conviction. I appreciate that the Government have undertaken a number of measures and that cases are being dealt with more expeditiously than in the past, but that does not go far enough. Indeed, we understand that unions have called for the protection to go further; they have asked that those accused are named only when they are found guilty. There are difficult questions in relation to what we mean by anonymity. Do we mean anonymity with regard to colleagues, the teaching profession, within the school or in the media? But the Minister answered that point when he said that we have to respect, or, in his words, ““take account of”” the freedom of the press and public interest. These Benches are concerned to ensure the safety of children and the ability discreetly to seek out witnesses who could support or deny allegations. But when we are talking about the freedom of the press and public interest, we should remember that the lives of people who give of themselves when they join the teaching profession can be destroyed with such ease. We need to go further. I shall not take this amendment further tonight. I want to think about the concerns raised about it, including the questions the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised about problems with academies and referral to the Secretary of State. Perhaps it is right that we should rethink yet again the wording of our amendment and consider whether the appeal should be to the courts or to some other independent body. I find it very hard to hold back on something that I think is crucial for such a brilliant profession. However, all I shall say tonight is that I shall reserve my option to return to this issue at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 98 [Duty of local education authority in relation to excluded pupils]: [Amendment No. 125 not moved.] Clause 100 [duty of parent in relation to excluded pupil]: [Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c1185-6 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Disclosure of information Abuse Discipline Administration Education Inspections Protection Parents Private education Pupil exclusions Powers Public places Offences against children Standards Teachers Special educational needs Training School day Relationships and sex education
Legislation
Education and Inspections Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk