| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.30 pm
Secondly, in an era in which we are extremely sensitive to allegations made by youngsters and newspapers are happy to take up lurid stories, boards of governors and headmasters react immediately to such allegations and, moreover, want to be seen to react. In one case in Northern Ireland, in the wake of a scandal that had been well publicised in the local newspaper following an allegation made against a teacher, the members of the board of governors tripped over themselves to state publicly that they had dealt with the matter by suspending the teacher. The teacher was named in the local press. The governors thought that they were doing the right thing. They believed that they were protecting themselves. “What a good board of governors we are,” they said. “We have taken immediate action, and have told people that we have done so”—which had not happened in the last case that had featured in the paper. The teacher was found not guilty of the serious abuse that had been alleged, and the effect on him and his family was devastating.
My third point is this. The Government rightly want to attract the highest calibre of people into the teaching profession. That is one way of raising standards in schools. If such a disincentive is presented to teachers, however, it will be more difficult to attract good candidates. Who wants to put himself in a position in which not only his career but his family life can be ruined as a result of spurious allegations? I think that the new clause is right to propose the granting of anonymity up to the point of conviction, given the low conviction rate.
I suspect that that low conviction rate is yet more evidence that when such allegations are made, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are very sensitive about the issue and will therefore give the benefit of the doubt and let the court make the decision. As a result, some cases probably go to court that in other realms would not go to court, and that compounds the problem for the teacher.
The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised two issues. First, he pointed out that on suspension a teacher loses anonymity to an extent. That is true, but at least the new clause does not encourage a board of
governors to rush to take away that anonymity. In fact, it charges boards of governors with a duty to protect it. While the new clause may not be perfect and may not protect teachers completely, and while there may be instances in which—as a result of suspension and news on the bush telegraph—a teacher will named, it gives more protection than exists at present.
I believe that the Government should accept at least the essence of the proposal. That is the right thing to do if we are to protect teachers from false allegations. It is also the right thing to do if we want to attract high-quality people to what is a very honourable profession.
Jim Knight: I very much appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), expressed through this new clause, to protect teachers and other members of staff from the damaging effects of allegation. I share that concern and I am keenly aware, through my experiences as a Member of Parliament, a parent and a child, of the profound effect that false or unfounded allegations can have on a person’s health, family or career—the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) gave one such profound example—and of how publicity can then make the impact of those allegations much more severe.
Equally, it has been my experience as a governor that some allegations of abuse are true. Being abused by a person in a position of trust and authority, such as a teacher, can have a similarly devastating effect on a child. It is because we have to strike that balance that we must be very careful in seeking to address this problem, which Members in all parts of the House want to address. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) quoted the National Union of Teachers asking the Government to use this provision to find a workable way of protecting teachers from false allegation. We should continue to improve the guidance and to try to find a workable method, but it is certainly a complicated issue, as I shall try to sketch out.
In 2004, my Department’s five-year strategy for children and learners included a commitment to defending teachers from false allegations, to ensuring that teachers are not subjected to damaging delays where their integrity is in question, and to ensuring that swift action can be taken against those who made false allegations. That strategy was informed by research, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked. The Department has in recent years put in place an audit of allegations against education staff, and the results have been published. I will make sure that a copy of those results is made available in the House Library for the hon. Lady and other Members to peruse. In 2003-04, for example, the bulk of allegations were resolved outside the courts. Of the 2 per cent. that were considered by the courts, 71 resulted in conviction. According to the research, some 23 per cent. of cases resulted in disciplinary action within schools.
Following discussions with the Home Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, my Department consulted on new arrangements for handling allegations against teachers and other education staff. Last November, we issued guidance on this issue in England, to which the
hon. Member for Havant referred. Governing bodies of all schools and further education institutions must take account of this guidance in making arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. The revised version of “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, issued this April in England, also contains overarching guidance that can be applied to allegations against anyone working with children in any setting. It is important that we think about other people who work with children. In my own constituency, for example, there has been a series of allegations against prison officers working at a young offenders institution, which have been equally distressing for the people concerned.
As drafted, the new clause—I accept that the hon. Member for Havant said that the drafting may not be perfect—would apply only to teachers, other staff and volunteers in schools and further education institutions. However, as I said, they are not the only people who can be affected by allegations. Publicity about an allegation of abuse can have equally devastating effects for anyone who works with children. Department for Education and Skills guidance states that every effort should be made to maintain confidentiality while an allegation is being investigated, unless and until a person is charged with an offence. But it also makes it clear that in exceptional circumstances, the police may need to disclose the identity of a person under investigation.
Publicity can be helpful to an accused person in gathering support and bringing forward evidence on his or her behalf. There have been examples where responsible investigative journalism has brought to light cases of abuse. Freedom to report cases is an essential part of our criminal justice system, and we must take it very seriously.
The present system of self-regulation, overseen by the Press Complaints Commission, provides safeguards—no doubt not perfect—against the publication of inaccurate or misleading information. Certainly, hon. Members have reason to say that those safeguards might not be perfect. The PCC has recently revised its guidance on such matters. I noted what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said about the police. ACPO has strengthened its guidance to police forces, aimed at preventing people from being identified if they are not charged with a criminal offence.
Subsection (3) of the new clause sets out that policies and procedures should provide for disciplinary action to be taken against any teacher or member of staff who discloses any information about an allegation without the express permission of the governing body. Schools are free to include that sort of detail in their policies on allegations, and governing bodies are responsible for ensuring that such policies are in place.
Governors should bear in mind the fact that the use of reasonable force by teachers will be allowed under clause 85. I hope that that will avoid some of the examples of unfounded allegations of bodily harm and assault that have been highlighted in the press and to which the hon. Member for Havant referred. On the basis of what he said, it sounded as though those cases involved the use of reasonable force. I hope that other measures in the Bill will also help in that respect.
Legislation is already in place that permits the suspension of governors for up to six months if they breach confidentiality, and appointed governors can also be removed.
I respect greatly the reason why the issue has been raised. We have had a useful and, I hope, sensitive debate. I do not think that the House should want to divide on the issue, because I do not think that we are divided about its essence. We all agree with the intent and essence of what the Opposition are trying to do with the new clause.
Mr. Willetts: I had hoped that we could avoid dividing the House, but to help us to reach a decision, can the Minister give any indication that the Government will consider legislating to tackle the problem, because voluntary codes or codes for governing bodies are not enough?
Jim Knight: All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman—I hope that this is enough—is that I am very happy to consider, with my ministerial colleagues, whether statutory force is needed. I am sympathetic to his argument, but if we decide that such force is needed, it would need full consultation, because we could not restrict it simply to teachers; we would need to think about all the people who work with children and their vulnerability to false allegations. I am not sure whether we could get that right in time to include it in the Bill. I am being completely frank with him: I very much doubt whether we could come back with an amendment on the issue in the other place, but I will work with him, other hon. Members and ministerial colleagues to find out whether there is a way to improve the situation for everyone who works with children in this country, without jeopardising the safety of children—something that is important to all of us.
Mr. Willetts: I am trying to find a way forward, because I fully understand that we do not particularly want to divide the House if we can avoid it. Is he willing to meet a group of hon. Members to consider what the options might be to legislate beyond the code, which, although admirable, is sadly not sufficient, while recognising that such provisions might not be included in the Bill?
Jim Knight: Of course I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and have that discussion, although I cannot give a commitment to legislate, as I have said. On the basis of the reassurance that I have given, I hope that he will be happy to withdraw the motion.
Annette Brooke: Will that be a cross-party meeting?
Jim Knight: The hon. Lady got in just in time. As she is my neighbour, I know that she takes the issue of children’s rights very seriously, so I am naturally happy to extend the invitation to her. I hope that that consensus will allow us to move on to other issues.
9.45 pm
Mr. Willetts: I had hoped that the Minister would be able to go a bit further. I realise that our new clause is not the ideal way to tackle the problem, but I had
hoped that he could have given a Government commitment to legislate on it in some way or other. However, he has undertaken to meet us and to consider legislation, even if not through this Bill, and I look forward to discussing the matter further with him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
‘An admission authority may make it a condition of a child's admission to a school that the parent of a child agrees to secure compliance with any school rules made by the headteacher of that school.'. — [Mr. Hayes.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10— Home-school contracts—
‘(1) Section 111 of SSFA 1998 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (4)(b), (4)(c) and (5)
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) A governing body of a school to which section 110(1) applies or the local education authority where it is the admission authority for such a school may make it a condition of being admitted to the school that the parental declaration is signed in respect of the child.”
(4) In the heading of sections 110 (home-school agreements) and 111 (supplementary provisions about home-school agreements) for “agreements” substitute “contracts”.'.
New clause 11— Home-school contracts (no. 2)—
‘(1) SSFA 1998 is amended as follows.
(1) The governing body of a school which is—
(b) a city technology college, a city college for the technology of the arts or an Academy,
may adopt a home-school contract for the school, together with a parental declaration to be used in connection with the contract.
(2) For the purposes of this section and section 111 a ‘home-school contract' is a statement specifying—
(a) the school's aims and values;
(b) the school's responsibilities, namely the responsibilities which the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of pupils at the school who are of compulsory school age;
(c) the parental responsibilities, namely the responsibilities which the parents of such pupils are expected to discharge in connection with the education of their children while they are registered pupils at the school; and
(d) the school's expectations of its pupils, namely the expectations of the school as regards the conduct of such pupils while they are registered pupils there;
and ‘parental declaration' means a document to be used by qualifying parents for recording that they take note of the school's aims and values and its responsibilities and that they acknowledge and accept the parental responsibilities and the school's expectations of its pupils.
(3) The governing body shall take reasonable steps to secure that the parental declaration is signed by every qualifying parent.
(4) An admissions authority may make it a condition of a child being admitted to the school that the parental declaration is signed in respect of the child.
(5) An admissions authority may not—
(a) invite any person to sign the parental declaration at a time when the child in question has not been admitted to the school, or
(b) make any decision as to whether or not to admit a child to the school by reference to whether any such declaration is or is not likely to be signed in respect of the child.
(6) Subsections (3) and (4) do not require the governing body to seek the signature of a qualifying parent if, having regard to any special circumstances relating to the parent or the pupil in question, they consider that it would be inappropriate to do so.
(7) Where the governing body considers that a registered pupil at the school has a sufficient understanding of the home-school contract as it relates to him, they may invite the pupil to sign the parental declaration as an indication that he acknowledges and accepts the school's expectations of its pupils.
(8) The governing body shall discharge its duty under subsection (3)—
(a) in the case of a pupil attending the school on the relevant date, as soon after that date as is reasonably practicable; and
(b) in the case of a pupil admitted to the school, as soon after the date of his admission as is reasonably practicable.
(9) The governing body shall from time to time review the home-school contract.
(10) Where the home-school contract is revised by the governing body following such a review, subsections (3) to (8) shall, in the case of pupils admitted to the school after the revision takes effect, accordingly apply in relation to the revised contract.
(11) Before adopting the home-school contract or parental declaration, or revising that contract, the governing body shall consult—
(a) all qualifying parents, and
(b) such other persons as may be prescribed.
‘qualifying parent' means a registered parent of a pupil at the school who is of compulsory school age;‘admission authority' has the meaning given by section 88(1).(13) Section 110 does not apply to a governing body that decides to have a home-school contract.
111B Contents of home-school contracts
(1) In discharging any function under section 111A the governing body of a school shall have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.
(2) If the Secretary of State by order so provides, the governing body of a school to which subsection (1) of that section applies shall ensure that any form of words—
(a) specified in the order, or
(b) having such effect as is so specified,
is not used in a home-school contract or (as they case may be) in a parental declaration.
(3) An order under subsection (2) may apply—
(a) to any school specified in the order, or
(b) to any description of school so specified.
(4) A home-school contract shall not be capable of creating any obligation in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort.”.'.
New clause 72— Burden of proof in cases of confiscation—
‘(1) In any proceedings brought against a person in respect of his seizure or retention of an item in circumstances to which section 86 applies it shall be presumed that such seizure or retention was lawful unless the contrary is shown.
(2) In any proceedings brought against a person in respect of his disposal of an item in circumstances to which section 86 applies it shall be presumed that the disposal of the item was lawful if the item could not reasonably be restored to its lawful owner or, if a pupil, to that pupil's parent or guardian without thereby facilitating the commission of an offence or of creating the possibility that further disciplinary action might need to be taken in relation to the pupil.'.
Amendment No. 100, in page 64, line 36 [Clause 81], after ‘measures', insert
‘to ensure zero tolerance of disciplinary and behavioural problems'.
Government amendments Nos. 59 to 65, 68 and 78
Mr. Hayes: This group of new clauses and amendments deal with discipline in schools. If the objective of the Bill is to increase school autonomy, the Government should agree that a school must be completely in control of discipline. That is why the new clauses would make home-school contracts enforceable. If parents and children do not sign up to a code of behaviour, and stick to it, it would surely be inappropriate for those children to attend the school.
My proposals are also in line with the Government’s White Paper. It set a clear direction and that is why Opposition Members, who share the intent to drive up quality in our schools, have broadly supported the Government since it was published. We certainly support the Government in as much as they are determined to improve discipline in our schools for the benefit of children and teachers.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |