06 May 2007
Bournemouth
Lord Falconer continued his campaign that Human Rights are common values and common sense.Speaking in Bournemouth he told members of the NAHT that the Human Rights Act was there to aid not inhibit common sense decision making.
Good afternoon.
Could I, before I begin, thank you for allowing me to talk to you today.
You are no doubt used to education ministers addressing you. Just as groups like the Law Society or the Bar Council are used to having Lord Chancellors addressing them.
The Law Society and the Bar Council would, I think, be a touch surprised to find my colleague Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, addressing them. So you may well be wondering what on earth I'm doing here talking to you.
Human rights sets out I believe the values of our society. When you read in the newspapers about human rights far from believing that human rights sets out those values you might think that human rights had only been invented to prevent good public servants from serving the public sensibly.
I want to try to explode that myth for you here this afternoon.
And I want to urge you to reject any argument that says human rights hampers you in getting on with your job in running your schools with common sense and decency.
If its not common sense its not human rights.
And I want also to put in a plea for teaching pupils that human rights is the expression of all our values.
And that if we do not make it part of the property of our children as well as ourselves, future generations might think it was the property of the lawyers alone and that in the long term would not be good for the health of human rights.
So what I want to do today is three things:
- Firstly, to say something about human rights and schools: about the impact of human rights and the Human Rights Act on what you do as the senior teachers who run our schools; and
- Secondly to say something as well about human rights and education: about what I believe is the rightful place human rights in teaching and the education we offer children and young people
- And thirdly talk a little about the teachers' problems in dealing with the allegation culture in which we live.
As a lawyer, the son of a lawyer, and married to a lawyer, I think lawyers are very fine people indeed. But I'm dimly aware though I obviously find it utterly astonishing - that not everyone necessarily agrees with me, and that the legalisms and lawyers which tend to surround human rights and the Human Rights Act are not necessarily welcome by everyone including, I suspect, very, very busy head teachers who have more than enough on their plates already.
Over the past 7 years since the Act came into force, Human Rights arguments have been used in disputes involving; uniform, transport, the wearing of jewellery, the banning of corporal punishment, sex education, exclusion and the right to education. A wide range of areas. Issues which do not come up often but when they do that have a profound impact.
And even when specific Human Rights arguments are not involved, the whole language of rights can lead to unfounded statements about violations, which whilst not true, can cause confusion in the minds of decision makers. Situations like that involving the support teacher and her desire to wear a full veil. A case disputed on discrimination grounds, not Human Rights but which the media used the words Human Rights almost interchangeably. Potentially causing confusion amongst decision makers, making Human Rights distant, daunting and difficult to understand.
So I accept that when faced with potential Human Rights issues, however rarely, there will be some concern and a desire to get it right.
Well, as the old joke goes, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you. Help you in these remarks to deal with human rights issues if they come your way.
My message to you is a simple one. Human rights are common sense.
As they're sometimes presented in the media, human rights seem as far away from common sense as it's possible to be. My argument to you today is that they are not.
Human rights and the Human Rights Act express our common rights and our common values.
Principles of decency, of tolerance, of freedom, of equality, of respect. The values which underpin the very fabric of our society. The values which are common to us all.
If you do have to deal with human rights and human rights issues in your schools, and you find yourself in doing so being drawn, by circumstances or by advice, into decisions or actions which seem to you not common sense, then my guidance to you is: stop.
That is what the Act allows for. That is what the guidance promotes. That is what the courts have repeatedly upheld.
The Begum case is a perfect example. It is a case I am sure familiar to you all. This was the case about Shabina Begum, at the time in 2002 - a 13-year-old school pupil from Luton, over the wearing of the jilbab.
In 2000 Shabina Begum began attending Denbigh High School, a school she had chosen to go to, despite living outside its catchment area. She wore school uniform during her first two years without complaint.
However in 2002, she felt, because of her beliefs that she could not continue to wear the uniform prescribed by the school. She refused to wear anything but the Jilbab. The school did all it could to engage her and provide support, but it was not prepared relax its uniform rules for her. A stand-off ensued and Miss Begum took the school to court for breach of Article 9 - the Right to freedom of thought, religion and expression.
After working its way through the courts the case ended up in House of Lords, where Miss Begum's claim was dismissed. The head teacher in question was praised by the Law Lords for implementing a uniform procedure designed to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and for promoting inclusion.
The judges were convinced that a proper, sensible, thought through decision making process had been followed and that the rights of the community were given correct weight.
The case showed how uniform can be a difficult issue and one where head teachers and the schools governing body have to think extremely carefully.
But more than that it showed that common sense and human rights are entirely in line with each other.
If you follow a sensible process and then reach a sensible decision you will be supported. What the right uniform policy is will depend on the circumstances in the school.
The case supports my argument here today that the head teacher acting properly and sensibly is going to be in line with the Human Rights Act. There was no breach of human rights, or of the Human Rights Act, because a common sense decision had been made.
What then is the Human Rights Act ? What does it do ? How has it worked ? How does it impact on you, and what you do ?
Human rights are not, as some would try to portray them, some kind of European idea, grafted on to Britain. Far from it: human rights, in terms of the conventions which govern the idea, are if anything a British idea, grafted on to Europe.
We came into government 10 years ago this week with a clear commitment to legislate to bring human rights into UK law. The Human Rights Act 1999 puts on to this country's statute book the European Convention on Human Rights, brought in after the horrors of World War II to make clear a set of inalienable rights.
The ECHR was heavily influenced by British values. The debate over the ECHR was British inspired. The drafting of the ECHR was British led. The values entrenched in the ECHR were British through and through. The ECHR itself was ratified first by Britain. We exported our values and our rights to Europe. And in the 1999 Act, for the first time brought them home to Britain. Human rights are British rights.
The Human Rights Act sets out a framework of common standards by which we expect to be treated. It represents the freedoms which a pluralist society accepts - freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to have a private life, freedom from death, from unfair imprisonment, from degrading or inhuman treatment or torture.
Many myths have developed about what the Act does. And the nonsense decisions it causes. Myths which damage public confidence in the Act and which can cause decision makers to forget their common sense. Myths which I take every opportunity to combat.
Take the Kentucky Fried Chicken episode.
This centered on a man in Gloucestershire, who while evading capture by the police, holed up on the roof of a house whereupon he demanded drink, cigarettes, and food Kentucky Fried Chicken, apparently from his pursuers.
A spokeswoman on behalf of the police is reported as saying, and I quote although he's a nuisance, we still have to look after his wellbeing and human rights.
Two points here.
Firstly, on the back of the supposed police quote, the incident was widely reported as the man receiving food because of his human rights.
But secondly, it is utter nonsense that his human rights entitled him to Kentucky Fried Chicken, or anything else for that matter. This was a purely operational matter for the police to decide, based on a view about whether or not providing him with food would bring about a peaceful and swift resolution to the stand-off.
Nothing to do with human rights. Nothing to do with the Human Rights Act.
We are working with the police on these issues. There is a real and positive co-operation aimed at getting these things right. Because where things haven't been right, where there is a misunderstanding, or a misinterpretation, then my view is that is our fault, the fault of my department, for failing to explain the legislation properly.
It's not the fault of hard-pressed frontline officials trying to do a proper job whether they're police chiefs, or head teachers.
It's my job, and my department's job to make sure people who have to apply, interpret and implement the human rights act are fully equipped to do the job. To make sure that they have proper advice and guidance to do so.
That's why I was so keen to come and speak to you. That's why my ministerial team and I are speaking to police officers, probation officials, healthcare workers and a whole range of frontline decision makers wherever we can about human rights.
I know that not every decision is straightforward. In your case, I know that the DfES has issued draft guidance on educational polices and particularly on uniform policy. And I know local authorities are also active in providing support to you on human rights issues.
Uniform guidance is something I know that is currently being consulted upon. The proposed guidance says it is advisable to consult on and consider the effect of any proposed uniform policy on all groups in the school. And it encourages you to weigh the needs of individual groups against the needs of the community. That means considering factors such as; health and safety, security, teaching and learning, promoting a strong cohesive identity, protecting pupils from peer pressure relating to clothing, promoting harmony.
It seems to me to be a perfectly common sense approach. It is the approach I am sure you would all instinctively take. It is an approach which if followed is entirely in line with the Human Rights Act.
But I accept there may not be enough guidance of this sort available to help you.
If there isn't tell me. If you think there is a gap in operational guidance - tell me. If you feel you need clearer guidance in relation to the impact of the Act on your ability to run your school tell me.
I'm keen to hear from you. I am committed to supporting you and ensuring you are given all the guidance you need so you can make common sense human rights decisions.
Not to add burden and bureaucracy but to make sure you have all you need to make the decisions you need to make. This is the absolute opposite of Whitehall know best. This is making sure you have the resources, you have the advice, you have the information you need to deal with these issues.
Can I now turn to my second issue - human rights and education.
As head teachers you all, without question, do your utmost to ensure there is a sense of community in your school.
You do not tolerate intolerance, prejudice or hatred.
You rightly take pride in promoting respect, equality, harmony.
You are keen to provide a productive and inclusive teaching environment.
I believe that human rights are an important tool in achieving this.
If we are to instill society's values in our young people, they must know about rights, and they must know about responsibilities.
Human rights are central to that key balance. So we must teach our young people about human rights. We must help them to understand, both in theory and in practice, what human rights really mean.
So we will be offering you and your schools specific help on human rights through a resources pack on human rights tailored to the Key Stage 3 citizenship curriculum. This will be material developed by teachers for teachers. The material will be trialed very shortly and we hope to make them available nationwide later in the year.
Finally, the rights of teachers. Again it is common sense. Teachers' rights to family life, to privacy and to dignity are all rights which are vitally important. And all rights which one way or another can be threatened in a school.
Mobile phones being used to record so called teacher happy slappings and then being published on video sharing websites for the whole school to see is an example.
Alan Johnson has already pointed to this problem. I agree with what he has sadi about it.
The second issue is the issue raised by this union about the damage done to teachers by false allegations.
Those allegations can take so many forms from false allegations of sexual or physical abuse, to equally fasle allegations of failing to spot my child's potential thereby preventing him or her from realising his or her potential, to allegations of negligent failure to prevent accidents to children.
We all agree that serious allegations must be investigated, and children should feel safe. We know there will be cases where wrong doing is found.
But the way these allegations are investigated, and the way the law deals with them needs to be very carefully though through. The process is designed to get to the truth, and to be fair to those making the allegation, and, crucially, the subject of the allegation.
We have already introduced regulation for those claims farmers who unreasonably encourage people to sue when there is no basis.
The police are usually careful in the way they investigate the sex or physical abuse allegations.
But we need to focus as well on the schools setting and internal discipline.
Teachers are very vulnerable to false allegations. The combination of society's rightful concern to ensure children are properly protected, and the immense damage which allegations, even when established to be false, can do to the standing and the personal well-being of a teacher generally, means we have got to have systems in place which give children a sense they can feel safe they can make the allegations, but as well gives teachers security they will be fairly treated when such allegations are made, and suitably vindicated if the allegations are found to be false.
These allegations can come at the teacher through disciplinary proceedings, through police investigations and in serious cases trials, and through civil court actions or they can come through all three.
Dame Mary Mcdonald's case shows even when they do not take the form of any of these three they can still damage the teacher hugely.
In Mary's case two mothers alleged mary who was the head of a rpimary school had slapped one of the mothers' child. They made this allegation abusively and publicly whilst school assembly was about to start.
Mary had not even been in the part of the school when the supposed incident was said to have happened. All the witnesses who were there confirmed that.
Mary called in the police and the local authority. She was totally exonerated by both.
Where allegations are made and aired like that, and the school knows of them, there needs to be a process where the clearing of the teacher is made clear and public.
In most other cases where some form of disciplinary proceedings are going on, the name of the teacher should be kept anonymous.
Where-ever such allegations are made the teacher should be given the fullest possible opportunity to know of the allegations and rebut them. The teacher should not automatically be suspended. The school or the lea should think carefully before any suspension about whether it is necessary.
They should deal with the internal cases as quickly as possible consistent with fairness.
Suspensions going on years, or investigations going on years ruin lives often utterly unfairly.
Your human rights demand a fair process. And that basic fairness is what any person would expect. Its common sense.
You should be told. The allegations should be dealt with quickly and fairly. You should be confident the investigation will be fair and unbiased. You should not be suspended unecssarily. Your reputation should nto be trashed by the process. And if you are cleared the school should consider whether it is necessary to take sepcific measures to esatblish within your community your innocence.
My case is simple. Human rights are common values. Human rights are common sense.
Both we in government and you running schools have, I believe, a common agenda here.
You and your colleagues are in a unique position to influence, develop, shape and nurture this nation's future.
You can and you do have a really positive impact on how our society develops, what its values are and how it functions. You can do more in your schools and in your classrooms than we ever can from Westminster and from Whitehall to embed the importance of human rights to our society, to help create the kind of society we all want to see.
You need to see it operating in practice in all the areas I have described.
I believe in that approach. I want to work with you towards achieving that goal. Together, I am confident we can.
Thank you