---

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Ridings school which, we must remember, was formed

11 Nov 1996 : Column 62

after an amalgamation under a Conservative local authority. Does he agree with the Conservative education spokesman, Councillor John Ford, who was quoted in the Halifax Evening Courier of 7 November as saying:

"The problem was that the Education Secretary took nearly 12 months to approve the scheme which undermined the establishment of the new school and made it difficult for parents"?

Mr. Pawsey: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not impressed. The whole case pivots on what the director of education said:

"The local authority failed The Ridings school."

The hon. Gentleman can ask me as many questions as he likes on that subject, but I shall continue to give him the answer which I heard on "Panorama".

Staying on the subject of local authorities, I am increasingly of the view that they are extremely expensive. A paper on school funding produced by the Centre for Policy Studies showed that, of the national schools budget, £12 billion goes to schools and about £4 billion to LEAs. The total proportion of funds deducted by LEAs ranges from 26 per cent. in Havering to 39 per cent. in Barking and in Dagenham. It is argued that LEAs keep £3 for every £7 that they distribute among their schools. An average of £594 a year is withheld by LEAs for every pupil in the country. That is a truly staggering amount.

That problem occurs because there are three separate budgets: the general schools budget, the potential schools budget and the aggregated schools budget. The complexity of those three budgets means that the whole system of school funding is opaque. Clearly, it would be of substantial benefit to the House, to the country and, of course, to the children of the country if school funding were made more transparent and understandable.

Mr. Don Foster: Hear, hear.

Mr. Pawsey: I am delighted to receive the assent of the hon. Gentleman, who is the Liberal spokesman on this subject. He agrees with Conservative Members fairly infrequently, but it is always good when a sinner returns to the fold.

The problem is not so much the lack of funds, as Opposition Members continually allege, but that funds do not go where they are intended to go--to classrooms. There is still far too much LEA holdback.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged the disciplinary problems in some of the nation's schools. She now requires schools to publish their policy on discipline and schools will be empowered to give detention without first obtaining parental consent. That is a positive move in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. I want a new clause to be added to the Bill that would make it possible for the home-school contract to contain a reference to corporal punishment.

I now come to the point that was eloquently made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), who concentrated on the subject of exclusion for much of her speech. I found myself in agreement with at least some of her remarks. I believe, as she does, that exclusions damage children. In my view, but clearly not in hers, exclusions damage children far more than being caned would. That point was confirmed in a recent poll that

11 Nov 1996 : Column 63

showed that 68 per cent. of those interviewed believed that corporal punishment should be restored to the nation's schools.

It should be remembered--again, I echo a point made by the hon. Member for Eccles--that exclusions result in those children who most desperately require education being put outside the school gates. In other words, the children who would benefit most from being in the classroom and subject to the authority and discipline that are exercised there are the children who are excluded from those benefits. That cannot be right.

Mr. Dunn: Given the Leader of the Opposition's fixation with opinion polls, and given that 68 per cent. of those polled were in favour of the restoration of corporal punishment, how long will it be before that is the policy of the Labour party?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I see the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) nodding his assent. No doubt, that is something that will emerge during the passage of the Education Bill.

It is significant that the past 10 years have seen a steady increase in disciplinary problems because they coincide with the period following the abolition of corporal punishment. Hon. Members expect teachers to work miracles. We take from them one method of maintaining discipline but put nothing in its place and expect matters to continue as before. Recent events have shown just how unwise we are to expect that to happen. I simply seek to give teachers an added sanction: the use of the cane.

Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington): As my hon. Friend knows, I shall support his amendment. He has not mentioned, however, punishing parents whose children misbehave. It is a parental, not a school, problem. Why do we not put parents of unruly kids in prison for six months? If we did that, at least they might make their kids behave in school.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Has the hon. Gentleman looked at the judgments handed down by the European Court of Human Rights, particularly the application in 1982 of Mrs. Grace Campbell and Mrs. Jane Cosans to the European Court on whether they could stipulate as a reason for not allowing a child into a school the fact that they did not accept corporal punishment on the basis of a philosophical conviction?

Mr. Pawsey: The Conservative party does not believe that parent-school contracts should be inflexible, whereas the Labour party believes that everyone should sign up to them.

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North): The Labour party believes that they should be compulsory. It is the party of compulsion.

Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend is right; the Labour party would make such contracts enforceable. I believe

11 Nov 1996 : Column 64

that they should be voluntary. The difference between the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and me is that I do not believe in forcing things down parents' or schools' throats. I want to give them maximum possible choice and diversity, so that if a parent does not wish to sign a contract, they are not forced to do so. If a school's governing body does not wish to adopt the clause that I envisage, it will not put it in. I merely seek to add to the teachers' armoury one more sanction that they may use. If they choose not to use it, so be it, but that added sanction would help to ensure greater discipline in the nation's schools.

Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: No, I should like to continue my speech.

Corporal punishment would not be used to any marked extent; its existence would be deterrent enough. My amendment would allow schools--I stress the word "allow"--to use corporal punishment. Its use would be a free decision made by individual heads and governing bodies. The amendment would therefore be permissive, not prescriptive, similar to earlier clauses in the Bill on selection. My amendment merely continues--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am having difficulty in finding the hon. Gentleman's amendment on this evening's Order Paper.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am speaking to the part of the Bill that refers to discipline in schools and I seek briefly to advance a case which I have almost concluded. I should like to continue with it if I might.

Mr. Dafis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: No, I shall not give way. I have had a broad hint from Mr. Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, my amendment merely continues in the direction of giving greater powers to parents and schools, which is the laudable objective of the Conservative party and its education policies. In the past few months, we have witnessed greater and growing indiscipline in the nation's schools, culminating in the events at Manton school and the Ridings school.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned about the growing number of teachers who are taking early retirement. People become teachers not because they wish to become rich but because of the vocational aspect of teaching and the satisfaction that many teachers get from their job. There can be little satisfaction or pleasure, however, in seeking to teach an ill-disciplined or disruptive class, which threatens physical violence. No wonder many teachers seek to get out early. The restoration of corporal punishment in schools would signal the fact that society is no longer prepared to tolerate the thuggish activities of a small minority of children and that society is now prepared to take stronger action to defend those who wish to learn and those who seek to teach. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, education best takes place in a disciplined environment. My amendment would simply

11 Nov 1996 : Column 65

give teachers an added sanction that they could use. The decision to use it would lie with parents, governors and teachers.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House are convinced about the threat posed by violence and indiscipline in schools. In the past, the Opposition have opposed every reform that we have introduced, but this time, in the interests of the nation's children, I urge them to join us. The hon. Member for Brightside said that we should pull together. I urge the Opposition to pull together with us on this issue. Corporal punishment would be used rarely. Its principal value would lie in deterrence and its mere existence would usually be enough. It would help hard-pressed teachers and reduce the number of exclusions. It would help to restore discipline and authority, and make teaching easier. I support the Bill.

---