Teacher Anonymity Opposed

Lord Black

The Education Bill’s creation of a new offence to preserve the anonymity of teachers alleged to have committed crimes against their pupils was described as “unprecedented, unnecessary and unworkable” in the Lords Second Reading debate on Tuesday.

Lord Black (pictured) pointed out its serious repercussions for freedom of expression, the rights of children, open justice and freedom of information. “We are legislating to introduce an era of silence where children are concerned, when all the evidence of the last few years has underlined the pivotal role of a free press in uncovering scandal and abuse, a point the NSPCC has consistently championed. Publicity often helps others to come forward with evidence. Instead, we are saying to children: Unlike any other group in society, your complaints are treated as false until a charge is made.”

“...not all criminal misconduct is prosecuted. Teachers accused rightly of assaults might never be charged by the police due to lack of evidence or because of failure to take a whistleblower seriously. A teacher might be dismissed from a school and, for whatever reason, the school and those involved want no publicity. Allowing him or her indefinite anonymity has frightening implications for the welfare of children. As I understand it, it would also be an offence to name a teacher accused of a crime even if he or she were identified at an inquest or in a civil court action. The media or a parent would have to apply to another court to lift the reporting restrictions, as would anyone who wanted to publish the findings of an official inquiry. In an open society, that cannot be right...”

“Where is the evidence that media reports generate false accusations? Newspapers have consistently pressed the Government for evidence of such a link but none has been forthcoming. Perhaps that is because it was only in 2009 that the Department for Children, Schools and Families said there was no case for teacher anonymity, when giving evidence to the Select Committee inquiry into allegations against school staff. In the same inquiry the NASUWT confirmed that the biggest issue is not anonymity but the management of complaints and CRB practice-something the Government are rightly taking action on...”

Government spokesperson Lord Hill promised that the Government would give further consideration to the Clause. “A number of noble Lords asked us to consider extending these provisions further, although by contrast my noble friend Lord Black set out his concerns in that he felt the measure is an unwelcome interference with the freedoms of the press. The Government are proceeding cautiously in this area, reflecting the need to balance these competing rights. I look forward to more detailed consideration of this measure in Committee, and I want to make clear that we will consider carefully the arguments that are made.”

Schools Minister Nick Gibb and officials met the NS, MLA and Society of Editors to discuss the NS concerns raised by MPs during the Bill’s passage through the Commons, but were unable to produce any evidence of media reporting creating or exacerbating the problem of false allegations which could justify the new restrictions and its criminal sanctions. Indeed the Joint Committee on Human Rights reported that the “Government does not have data showing in how many cases allegations against teachers have been made public before charge.”

After the NS pointed out that Education Secretary Michael Gove would be liable for prosecution under his own Bill for publicising lists of teachers whom he had banned from teaching after investigation of such allegations of criminal misconduct against pupils, the Bill was amended to enable the restrictions to lapse if the Education Secretary and GTC (Wales) published information about the teacher, in connection with their disciplinary investigations or findings in respect of the allegation.