Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, our Amendments 307A, 307B and 307C are designed simply to probe the Government’s intentions behind this section of the Bill. Amendment 307A would leave out lines 17 to 19, thus probing the requirement to record each significant incident where a member of staff used force on a pupil. Amendment 307B probes the meaning of the word "significant", while Amendment 307C would leave out lines 25 and 26, which probes the need to record the incident as soon as is practicable. We have tabled our amendments and participate in this debate to probe the Government’s intentions. We agree with the Government that it is important to ensure that our pupils are protected from abuse of power and that our teachers are protected from false accusations. We are, however, concerned that a statutory duty to record and report every significant incident may not be the best way to achieve this. The National Union of Teachers informs us that, ""current NUT guidance to its members includes advice that procedures should be in place for the recording of significant incidents involving use of physical restraint by staff on pupils and that parents should generally be informed"." Given this, can the Minister inform the Committee of the reason for introducing a statutory duty? Is it in reaction to any particular issue or incident? We would advocate that teachers be allowed to exercise their own professional judgment with regard to what incidents should be recorded and reported to those at home. We support Amendment 307BB, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which, as she explained, would mean that while all "significant" incidents were still recorded, the head teacher could use his or her discretion in deciding whether it was appropriate to inform the child’s parents. There may be occasions, as the noble Baroness explained, where the child is at risk of more harm from angry parents if they are informed of every incident whereby a member of staff has to use some amount of force on a pupil to maintain discipline. In those circumstances, it would surely be more appropriate for the head teacher to be able to exercise discretion and make a suitable judgment about the possible dangers posed to a child if the information was passed directly to their parents, instead of a blanket requirement which took no account of specific circumstances or particular situations. Like the noble Baroness, I would like to hear a little bit more about the meaning of "significant". It would be useful to have some examples of what would have to be recorded under this provision and what would not. With this in mind, I again express my support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which in effect asks for guidance on the type of incidents which are intended to be covered. Part of our concern about the provisions centres around the worry that teachers are already under a large amount of strain, particularly bureaucratic strain. We should surely seek to decrease, not increase, this burden. Surely everyone wants to avoid any unnecessary and excessive bureaucracy. Given that, does the Minister think that recording and reporting these incidents is a necessary burden? Are the Government not concerned that, with the increase in bureaucracy, they may invite a disincentive for teachers to keep order? The National Union of Teachers has expressed concern that the new duties to record and report incidents will, ""not offer teachers any higher level of protection from allegations from students or parents which are malicious or unfounded"." Can the Minister reassure the National Union of Teachers on this count? Our Amendment 308 in this group would mean that a member of staff retained the right to use force as a physical restraint if the pupil attempted to leave the room where they were subject to a disciplinary penalty outside school sessions. The Minister will doubtless recognise the motive behind the amendment, as it has been a constant theme throughout our discussions on this part. The powers to discipline a pupil should be given back to teachers, and we should trust their professional judgment to be able to exercise it. The amendment responds, in part, to a concern that teachers are now regularly unable to enforce detentions and other punishments because the pupils can simply leave the room and teachers have no power to stop them for fear of litigation and a desire to protect their jobs. How is discipline supposed to be enforced in these circumstances? Would it not be far better to have a system with clear boundaries, enforceable sanctions and immediate resolutions? Instead, we have a confusing mess of guidance, regulation and general fear of litigation. Within the confines of the system, it is very difficult to enforce discipline at all. I look forward to the Minister’s response.