| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I have much sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. As others have said, she has gone to a great deal of trouble to take into account the circumstances under which further investigations could and should properly be made. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that it should not be the Secretary of State to whom one appeals in these circumstances; there should be someone much more independent than that. Perhaps the Minister can reassure us on that point.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, asked, “Who would be a teacher?”. Teachers are an amazing group of people, giving absolutely of their best. Usually, people are grateful to them but also quite a lot of carping goes on. I hope that we might find a way of further protecting them from what can increasingly be seen as a way of purely getting one's own back on a teacher. There is an altogether too successful method of doing that at the moment, with the media not being as responsible as they should be.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1184
Lord Adonis: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I completely appreciate the concerns which have led the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to table the amendment. I pay tribute to her for the consistent attention she has paid to this important issue during the passage of the Bill through the House.
My reply was in fact largely given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I hope I do not need to repeat it all, but I feel it incumbent on me, given the gravity of the issue, to set out the Government’s position properly.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Walmsley, met my honourable friend Jim Knight, along with Members of the House of Commons and representatives from the NSPCC and the NASUWT, in July. My honourable friend agreed to give the issue further consideration over the summer and has recently written to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to follow up the points raised at that meeting. It may be helpful, since that letter was not circulated to all noble Lords, if I reiterate the key points. I stress—as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has—that because we are not able to give a statutory right to anonymity, although we have given it a good deal of consideration, that does not mean to say that we have been satisfied with the status quo and have not made changes. We have made changes, which I will set out. We believe, however, that to give a statutory right of anonymity is a step too far, given all the considerations that need to apply.
First, our new guidance on allegations was issued less than a year ago. Since then, we have included overarching guidance on handling allegations against all people who work with children, in Working Together to Safeguard Children. That was published in April, and applies from October this year. Taking up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, a key feature of that advice is that all allegations should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. One of the biggest concerns the teaching unions have rightly had on this is that too many cases were dragging on for an unnecessarily long time. Each continuation of the investigative process is more time when a teacher is, perhaps unfairly, in the spotlight and unable fully to clear their name—if, indeed, they are innocent of the allegations.
The safeguarding children guidance makes emphatic the need for speed in dealing with allegations. At paragraph 6.21 on page 152 it says:
including procedures applying in schools—
- “local safeguarding children boards should have regard to the need to complete cases expeditiously. Data about allegations made against education staff show that it is reasonable to expect that 80 per cent of cases should be resolved within 1 month, 90 per cent within 3 months and all but the most exceptional cases should be completed within 12 months, although it is unlikely that cases that require a criminal prosecution or a complex police investigation can be completed in less than 3 months”.
That is clear in setting actual timeframes within which allegations should be investigated and decisions taken about whether charges are to be brought.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1185
Secondly, we now have in place the new network of allegations management advisers, who took up their posts in April. They work with the local safeguarding children boards to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with allegations of abuse against people who work with children. Part of the work of these new allegations management advisers will be to help organisations avoid allegations arising in the first place, through safe recruitment processes and advice on staff behaviour when working with children, precisely of the kind described by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. They will also help local safeguarding children boards and other organisations to develop and implement effective arrangements for collecting data on allegations, including data on how quickly the allegations are dealt with, so that we can monitor the effectiveness of local arrangements in meeting the guidance timeframes I have just set out. We have undertaken formally to review the impact of the guidance next year with the involvement of all stakeholders and will reconsider what further measures may be necessary in the light of that review.
On the issue of a statutory right to anonymity, we remain of the view that legislation on this issue now would raise important principles about the freedom of the press and the public interest and that the crucial issue is to deal with cases quickly. We agree with the NSPCC that we should not do anything that would discourage children reporting concerns, and we believe that to introduce anonymity for teachers, but not for other professionals who have contact with children, would create an undesirable two-tier system.
Although I cannot go the whole way with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I thank her for raising these issues again and giving us a chance to discuss them. I hope she will accept that the measures I have set out will go some way to deal with the issue.
9.30 pm
Baroness Buscombe: 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.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1186
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 the 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 the 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.]
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 78, line 38, leave out from “means” to end of line 39 and insert “any time during a school session of the school referred to in subsection (1)(a) or during a break between sessions of that school on the same day”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Notice to parent relating to excluded pupil]:
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
Lord Adonis moved Amendment No. 130:
(2) In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 4 (powers of community support officers to issue fixed penalty notices), after paragraph (aa) insert-
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1187
(4) In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 5 (powers of accredited persons to issue fixed penalty notices), after paragraph (ab) insert-
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I failed to speak to this amendment in the earlier group. Perhaps I may say a brief word about it now. This is a technical amendment to extend the power of police community support officers to issue fixed penalty notices to the parents of truants, so that they can issue such notices to the parents of excluded pupils who are found in a public place during the first five days of exclusion. It would be anomalous if CSOs could deal with one group of pupils but not another. The amendment will remove that anomaly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104 [Removal of excluded pupils to designated premises]:
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 81, line 41, leave out from “means” to end of line 42 and insert “any time during a school session of the school referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection or during a break between sessions of that school on the same day”
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 132:
(1) One of the persons appointed to the staff of the Office under paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 is to be appointed as Adult Learning Director.
(2) The Adult Learning Director is to have functions in relation to the performance by the Chief Inspector of functions relating to-
(3) Any report made under section 117 shall contain a report by the Adult Learning Director on the performance of his duties under this section, which shall include information on the extent to which links with, and understanding of the needs of, employers have been developed.”
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry that there has been no further progress on the form of an amendment to clarify both the position that we wish and the position accepted in principle by the Minister in Committee. I will not detain noble Lords for longer than is necessary.
The amendment performs a single task—it provides for a distinct inspectorate body to ensure that standards are upheld in educational provision for 16 to 19 year-olds. It would ensure that the pathways from vocational to
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1188
- “we do not expect there to be any drive to uniformity. Different sectors have different needs, different approaches will remain, and we shall expect these to be reflected in the new Ofsted arrangements”.—[Official Report, 25/7/06; col. 1711.]
It seems that we are in agreement, and I press the Minister to stick to that commitment by accepting our amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley are attached to this amendment. We thoroughly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has said. The Adult Learning Inspectorate is being absorbed within the new Ofsted. The Minister and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector have made it clear to us that in forming the new Ofsted they would incorporate the staff and the ethos of these different inspectorates. But the Adult Learning Inspectorate has had a specific mission, which in many ways is encapsulated in the words of this amendment. It would be advantageous if the new Ofsted contained at least one person who had a very clear remit to protect and preserve the ethos of adult learning. So we thoroughly support the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley. The aim of these amendments is to give the chief inspector the power, rather than a duty, to review and rate overall performance of each local authority every year. We put forward a similar set of amendments in Committee. There was remarkably little discussion then—that came later on amid a very large group of amendments. The Minister’s response effectively was just to say that the Government thought that it was a good idea that Ofsted should have the duty to produce an annual report, and that the combination of the report and the rating given on overall performance was a way of enhancing local accountability.
We tabled the amendments on behalf of the Local Government Association. The association accepts that the process of inspection is valuable; it does not argue against the process of inspection. It argues that, just as with schools and colleges, the process should feed into a self-evaluation in which self-assessment takes centre stage. That self-assessment would be annual; it would draw on the inspectors’ report but also consider other evidence and draw on other sources of information. That is not to say that Ofsted should never report on the local authority—far from it. As with the self-evaluation framework for schools, which is being introduced, an Ofsted inspection would take place regularly—every two or three years. A key aspect of that inspection would be to examine how realistic was the self-assessment.
The key issue is whether it is necessary that every year the chief inspector should have the power and duty to review the local authority and assess its performance. I ask the Minister whether, given the evolution towards the self-evaluation model, it is really necessary to put the duty on Ofsted to report every year on the local authority.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1189
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 132. I have two or three points to make—I hope, succinctly. First, it is clearly important that, under the very significant changes taking place, both Ofsted and HMCI remain alive to their responsibilities. That is a given and, I think, is shared.
I am not convinced that legislation is the best way to ensure that or to encourage it, for two reasons. First, to specify a post in the Bill verges on being disproportionate. There are many other areas of work in Ofsted where we do not specify appointments on which there should be legislative instruction. People might well feel that creating such a post through legislation might accord it disproportionate significance within the new organisation.
My second point follows that one very closely. I am inclined to oppose anything that diminishes the professional and operational independence of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. That principle was won and has been defended vigorously. I suspect that creating a post such as this through legislation would cause uncertainty in the ranks about where responsibility lies, to whom responsibility should be given and by whom. At the moment, there is a clear relationship: the Secretary of State reports to Parliament and the Chief Inspector of Schools is responsible through that route. Now, to my regret, as I have made plain during earlier stages of the Bill, the chief inspector also has a board, so there is already significant responsibility, and the need to accentuate the responsibility for this area through a specific post is a step too far. Hence, I am unable to support the amendment.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, following the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, enables me to pay tribute to the work of Ofsted during the past 14 years. He was the distinguished first head of Ofsted and it has done exemplary work in the school system and beyond during that period. I know that it is late, but this is our only opportunity to discuss inspection on Report.
It may be of interest to the House to learn that recent research conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of Ofsted to obtain parents' views of inspections in schools found that 92 per cent of parents said that they were in favour of school inspections, against only 4 per cent who were not; 82 per cent of parents said that they believed that inspections had helped their child’s or children’s schools to improve, with 90 per cent of that group considering the inspection or report to be helpful.
It is very unusual in the educational world to have such near-unanimity on any aspect of policy. It is a tribute to the work of Ofsted during the past 14 years that it has managed to achieve that status. I know that the reports by Ofsted in general and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector in particular—especially his annual reports, which have become a sort of state-of-the-nation report on the quality of the school system—are immensely valued by parents and policy makers.
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1190
9.45 pm
On Amendment No. 132, I completely agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. We believe that creating an adult learning inspector in the Bill is unnecessary. As I made clear in Committee, there is no question of any part of the adult skills remit being lost in the new framework. We have put in place safeguards, such as a new board with statutory duties to have regard to the views of users such as employers, who are defined as one such user. I recognise that some groups, particularly those that were not part of Ofsted as it was before the Bill, were initially suspicious of the move to Ofsted. However, we believe that these concerns have been diminished as the proposals have become better developed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |