Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 307, 307ZA, 307BA, 307BB and 307D. We move now to the issue of recording and reporting the use of force in schools. None of us wants to see members of staff using force on a child in school but we have to accept that sometimes teachers find themselves up against some very difficult situations and restraint becomes necessary to avoid a child injuring himself or another person, and teachers need clarity on this matter. However, we have some concerns about the way in which Clause 239 will operate, so we have tabled a group of amendments to tease this out. Amendment 306 would remove, ""prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline"," from the list of purposes for which force may be used on a pupil. Since the Government first considered these powers there has been a development in the Court of Appeal. The judgment in R(AC) v Secretary of State for Justice 2008 established that rules allowing children in secure training centres to be restrained to ensure good order and discipline breached Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, interpreted in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. My amendment gives the Government the opportunity to revise their proposals on the use of force in schools in line with this judgment. Section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 allows staff to use reasonable force in three circumstances, including maintaining good order and discipline. My amendment would remove that and I urge the Committee to accept it. Amendment 307 would introduce a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State concerning behaviour management training for members of staff in schools. This amendment is supported by the Children’s Rights Alliance for England, the Children’s Society, the National Children’s Bureau, the NSPCC and Treehouse—as was the previous one—because they know, from all their practical experience with children, that situations where restraint might have been necessary can be avoided by well trained staff. If they were trained in de-escalation techniques, risk assessment and safe ways of using force where necessary, respecting children’s rights and dignity, we would have a much better situation and much less need for this sort of intervention, which should, of course, always be the last resort. The training should be a proper accredited course. Staff in secure training centres and children’s homes are required by law to undergo such training. It has not heretofore been regarded as being necessary for school staff; however, if the Government are to introduce these new powers, it becomes very necessary. I hope that the Minister will accept my proposal. Amendment 307ZA allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to the governing body of the school about these recording and reporting powers, and the governors must have regard to it. If that is done, the governors will pay attention to this matter and develop a protocol in the school to which parents will be invited to sign up. It is important that pupils should also be made aware of this protocol. We need openness and accountability here. With regard to using physical interventions with a pupil with SEN, the child’s particular needs should be reflected in their individual education plan or behaviour plan. Where an individual protocol is in place, arising from a risk assessment, different levels of intervention may have been specified as being foreseeable. Parents should be shown, and agree to, such a protocol before it is necessary to use it. For other children, this is a matter in which the governors should take a serious interest. Amendment 307D would insert the same amendments into Clause 240, relating to further education colleges. Amendment 307BA tries to raise the bar a little with regard to those incidents that fall under the duties in Clause 239 to record and report the use of force. In our view, small incidents that do not infringe upon the children’s well-being, rights or dignity should not impose a duty to record and report. Amendment 307BB suggests that it should be down to the discretion of the head teacher to decide which incidents are of such seriousness that it is in the child’s interest to both record them and report them to each parent. Reporting them to a violent parent could result in a child being beaten at home for getting into physical violence. The head teacher must have some discretion in this; head teachers know their children, and we should trust them. The Government have included "significant" in line 17 on page 146. Will the Minister explain to the House what she means by that term with regard to the discretion and judgment of the head teacher? None of us wants to impose a heavy burden of unnecessary reporting and letter-writing upon a busy head, while at the same time we want to protect children’s rights. It is important that legislation gets the balance right so that there is a chance of the whole thing operating sensibly in practice on the ground. I beg to move.