Education Bill

My Lords, it is clear from this excellent discussion that improving standards of behaviour in our schools is a major priority for us all. It goes to the root of how we raise standards and lies at the heart of our determination to close the attainment gap between those from poorer and those from wealthier backgrounds. Most importantly, it goes to the root of how we keep children safe at school and college, particularly the most vulnerable because we know that they are the ones most likely to suffer from a disorderly environment. I want to say at the beginning how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, about the sensitivity of this. She was kind enough to invite me along to the All-Party Group on Children where we debated some of these issues. I agree with her entirely that discipline is not just about punishment. Unfortunately, one of the ways that the various amendments have been grouped means that we are jumping from one strand of the clause to another and have not really had the opportunity to set it out in its context. I will try to do a bit of that. We will come back to some of the more sensitive issues around opposite-sex search, which I know a number of my noble friends and noble Lords will want to raise, and issues more generally such as those to do with electronic devices and deletion—which, again, I know is sensitive. With the agreement of noble Lords, I intend to concentrate on the issue of training, which is the core issue lying behind these amendments. The Government know, as do noble Lords, that having a clear behaviour policy that is widely publicised and consistently applied, and which includes positive incentives as well as sanctions, is at the core of what good schools ought to offer. We can all think from our experience of schools which demonstrate excellent practice and we want more to do so. One way that we can help with that is to hold schools to account for the behaviour and achievements of all their pupils. Our proposals on Ofsted inspection will relate to that. We know that, despite good behaviour management, serious incidents sometimes happen in schools. We cannot always predict when they will happen. The measures in the Bill are designed to support teachers’ powers to maintain an orderly environment, building on the measures introduced by the last Government. The powers to search in this clause are likely, thankfully, to be used rarely in most schools and only in serious cases. The overall purpose of the clause is to ensure that teachers, head teachers and principals have the powers that they need to deal with incidents when they occur. My top-line response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, as to what the clause does—we will come back to that—is that in general terms it is trying to give schools the ability to respond to local issues and problems that they may face day to day, rather than having to wait for the Government to amend regulations or to sit here considering a whole range of specific issues that we might think that they need to respond to, then renewing the regulations each time in response to every challenge that they face. We are trying to provide a framework so that, if they need to, they can search for any item that can be used to commit an offence, cause injury or is banned by the school rules. We will come back to that. My noble friend Lady Walmsley raised the important issue of training. In addition to the measures in the Bill, we are clear that we want all teachers to be trained to manage and improve children’s behaviour from the start of their careers. In our ITT strategy, which we published yesterday, we said: "““Improving teachers’ skills in tackling poor pupil behaviour is also vital: no issue is more important when it comes to attracting good people into teaching ... We know that there is some excellent practice in this area, and we will encourage support between ITT providers, so that struggling providers can learn from the best ... We will also help local networks of schools to develop teachers as behaviour specialists””." On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the Secretary of State has asked Mr Charlie Taylor—our expert adviser on behaviour—to consider how initial teacher training could give teachers the best possible preparation in behaviour management. Mr Taylor believes that ITT cannot be the end of training on behaviour management. Some of it can only be learned in school. He is also working with the department on our teaching schools programme to look at the issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the suggestion of a teach-in, which also came up at out APPG meeting last week. I think it would be a good idea to do that. I suggest that we organise a meeting with Charlie Taylor well in advance of Report stage where we can go through all these issues and noble Lords can explore them in detail. Overall, these powers are permissive—I will come back to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Jolly in a moment—and no teacher can be forced to search a pupil or student. However, we think that it is right that the power should be available for an authorised person to use in extremis. The Bill builds on earlier legislation that recognised the usefulness of teachers having powers to search. In extending that legislation, it is important that we also add safeguards to ensure an appropriate balance between the rights of the individual, of the child and of all the children or students in the school or college. I turn to the specific amendments. I know that training is an issue in which my noble friend Lady Walmsley has long take a keen interest. Head teachers and college principals are required to authorise members of staff to undertake a search, as my noble friend will know. A purpose of that requirement is that the head teacher or principal will want to be satisfied that the member of staff is competent to carry out a search. In determining that, they will need to take account of any training that that member of staff has received or may need given their policy on searching. There are additional sensitivities around searches by a member of the opposite sex and searches without a witness, and there are amendments in a couple of groups’ time where we will debate those issues in detail. However, it is our view that decisions about what training is offered to members of staff in relation to searching pupils and students without consent are properly made by individual schools and colleges in the light of their particular needs and circumstances. There was discussion earlier about the wisdom of having a uniform approach across the piece to avoid some of the dangers of having a differentiated one, but the counterargument is that to specify the same approach to training or screening for a small rural primary school, which will have a particular set of issues, as for a large urban inner-city school is problematic. It is our view that decisions about what training is offered should be taken by individual schools and colleges. Heads and principals should be given the space to make decisions about which staff need to be trained, the type of training that they need and the appropriate training provider. That could, of course, include the matters that are the subject of Amendments 15 and 29. While I agree with my noble friend Lady Walmsley that these are important matters for head teachers to consider, I think that the previous Government took the right approach in deciding that it was not necessary to specify the requirement for training in legislation. With regard to Amendment 20 and the anxiety of my noble friend Lady Jolly that a teacher might be required to search, the existing search provisions explicitly state that a head teacher may not require anyone other than a member of the school security staff to undertake a search. They also define what a member of the school security staff is. So it is not, and will not be in future, possible for a school teacher to be required to search. I hope that that provides some reassurance. That is linked with the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that emergency searches should be conducted only by a member of the senior management team. As I have already said, given the sensitivities around these powers, we think that the instances in which they might be used will be very restricted. It is our view that we should not restrict these powers specifically to the senior leadership team. Given that this is an emergency provision and that emergencies can, unfortunately, arise at any time, to say that it would have to be a member of the senior management team—and an instance then arose when a member of that team was not present—would seem to go against the grain of, in a small number of cases, giving professionals the opportunity to exercise their discretion. Senior managers are not necessarily more likely to be present in an emergency situation, or to have received more training, than other members of staff. Our argument is that we should make it possible for any member of staff designated by the head teacher to act in the interests of students and staff when their safety is at risk. The amendments also refer to the necessity for such searches to be justified and for any force used to be reasonable. I agree that that is essential, and safeguards are set out in the Bill and in previous legislation. Specific justifications will be necessary to conduct emergency searches. There must be a risk that serious harm will be caused to a person and that, in the time available, it will not be practicable for another member of staff to be present. The provision that specifies that any force used must be reasonable is set out in Section 550ZC(2) of the Education Act 1996. On Amendments 26 and 31, about keeping written records, I listened with care to the points made. The Government believe that one way in which we will achieve better behaviour is through giving schools and colleges greater freedom to make their judgments about enforcing school rules and supporting college behaviour management policies, promoting the welfare of pupils and students. By the same token, we think that we should trust schools and colleges to come to their own decisions on whether and how to record instances of searches. We certainly share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that measures such as this should be used in a fair, equitable and proportionate way. She will know that under the Equality Act 2010, pupils and students are already protected against discrimination, harassment and victimisation in schools and colleges on the grounds of ethnicity, disability and other protected characteristics. I know that those were proper concerns raised by other noble Lords. The Act also introduced a single equality duty, which came into force in April this year. The Government intend to make regulations under which schools and colleges will have to publish objectives and information demonstrating how they are eliminating discrimination and promoting equality and good relations between people of different characteristics. A number of broader issues arose during that excellent debate, to which we shall return. On the specific amendments, I hope that, in some instances, I have been able to provide some reassurance and more information. I am sure that we will debate Clause 2 and some of the specific issues further but, in the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw her amendment.