---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for the Chair.

Ms Estelle Morris (Birmingham, Yardley): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification. The clause was lost in Committee, but we went on to consider further clauses that related to it on the understanding that the Government would bring it back on Report. The Government have failed to carry this important new clause, on which later clauses depend. Can we have your guidance on what will happen to clauses that refer to the new clause that has been lost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must proceed with the Bill. The Government will no doubt take note of the points that have been made.

Mr. Blunkett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of challenging your decision, but as it was ruled in Committee that the deletion of the clause would have consequential results on the remainder of the Bill, it is difficult to see how the Government can proceed with the Bill in its present form. They said in Committee that they could not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to what I have said. We must carry on with consideration of the Bill. I have no doubt that the Government will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

New clause 4

Power of members of staff to restrain pupils

'. After section 550 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted--

"Power to restrain pupils
Power of members of staff to restrain pupils
550A.--(1) A member of the staff of a school may use, in relation to any pupil at the school, such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of preventing the pupil from doing (or continuing to do) any of the following, namely--
(a) committing any offence,
(b) causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person (including the pupil himself), or
(c) engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school or among any of its pupils, whether that behaviour occurs during a teaching session or otherwise.

27 Jan 1997 : Column 80

(2) Subsection (1) applies where a member of the staff of a school is--
(a) on the premises of the school, or
(b) elsewhere at a time when, as a member of its staff, he has lawful control or charge of the pupil concerned;
but it does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section 548.
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be taken to prevent any person from relying on any defence available to him otherwise than by virtue of this section.
(4) In this section--
"member of the staff", in relation to a school, means any teacher who works at the school and any other person who, with the authority of the head teacher, has lawful control or charge of pupils at the school;
"offence" includes anything that would be an offence but for the operation of any presumption that a person under a particular age is incapable of committing an offence.".'.--[Mr. Forth.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12 and 40.

Mr. Forth: The new clause is intended to help teachers. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome it, as the teachers' unions have. It will codify and clarify teachers' powers to restrain disruptive pupils. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please leave quietly, and will those remaining please give the Minister a fair hearing?

Mr. Forth: Teachers and other staff authorised by the head teacher will have the--

Mr. James Pawsey (Rugby and Kenilworth): Will my hon. Friend help me and other hon. Members? Does the new clause have any implications for any new clauses, which we may debate later, that relate specifically to corporal punishment?

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend will be aware that the wording of part of the new clause bears directly on the point that he has raised. To help my hon. Friend, I shall quote the new clause. It says that the clause

"does not authorise anything to be done in relation to a pupil which constitutes the giving of corporal punishment within the meaning of section 548."

My hon. Friend will agree that, in framing this important provision, which has the support of teachers and their unions, we have been conscious of the fact that others see such matters from a different perspective and might have shared my hon. Friend's worry that it might overlap with any possible provisions for corporal punishment. That is why--I hope that my hon. Friend accepts the validity of this--we have taken the trouble to put into the new clause a specific form of words to clarify beyond doubt the fact that the ability of a teacher to use reasonable restraint in

27 Jan 1997 : Column 81

trying to keep order in the classroom cannot and will not be construed as giving any sort of authority for the reintroduction of corporal punishment.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend might acknowledge that there is a fine line between restraint--preventing a pupil from hurting or injuring another pupil--and the use of corporal punishment. It might be construed that corporal punishment is being used in restraining a child. That is a fine point. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could spend a little time--for my benefit if for no one else's--explaining the distinction.

Mr. Forth: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is important. He will remember that, in Committee--I think that it was when we were debating his new clause--similar points were raised about the confusion that might arise in the definition of corporal punishment. I understand why my hon. Friend is bringing a similar argument to bear on the possible definitional problems that might exist on restraint in the classroom. I have two reassurances for him, which I hope he will accept. First, there will inevitably be guidelines which, after due consultation, my Department will issue the better to give guidance to teachers, heads and others on how to interpret the clause and to put the issue beyond doubt. Secondly, any reasonable person reading the new clause, knowing its context, and understanding the motivation behind it, would have difficulty confusing reasonable restraint by a teacher with the administration of corporal punishment. I accept that my hon. Friend's argument might apply in extreme cases, but I doubt whether they would arise.

Mr. Pawsey: I apologise for continuing to interrupt my hon. Friend's speech. I understand that he is developing the theme. Does he intend to refer to the European perspective? He will know that there have been some erroneous claims that the European Court has ruled against the United Kingdom on the use of corporal punishment in schools.

Mr. Forth indicated assent.

Mr. Pawsey: Clearly my hon. Friend agrees that those claims are erroneous. Will he confirm that the new clause does not fall foul of the European Court of Justice?

Mr. Forth: I am confident that there is no danger of our falling foul of the European Court of Human Rights on this because the measure is designed not only to protect teachers--rightly--against what are often said to be unfair and unfounded accusations, but to protect pupils. It will apply when a teacher restrains a pupil who may be fighting or in conflict with another. One of the important motivations behind the new clause--I am glad that my hon. Friend has given me the opportunity to explain this--is to provide additional protection to pupils. At a cursory reading, it may seem to be all about protecting teachers, but my hon. Friend, with his enormous knowledge and understanding of such matters, will know that one of the other purposes of the new clause is to provide real protection to pupils. We are giving teachers the power to restrain pupils who are harming one another--or even, as might occasionally happen, harming themselves--or causing disruption in the classroom.

27 Jan 1997 : Column 82

Existing common law principles allow teachers to take reasonable steps to restrain seriously disruptive pupils, but many people seem not to understand that, perhaps because those principles are derived from 19th century case law.

Mr. Pawsey: I am following my hon. Friend's argument closely. When a teacher intervenes in a classroom brawl or, more likely, a playground brawl, is there a risk of that teacher falling foul of insurance provision? Can my hon. Friend assure me that there will be adequate insurance for teachers, and that any teacher who might be injured as a result of intervening in some disagreement between pupils will be covered by terms of insurance?

7.30 pm

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting and relevant point; I should like to take further advice on it. My initial reaction is that I do not believe that the new clause would materially affect the position either of teachers or of schools. Ever cautious, however, about giving an off-the-cuff response to an important and substantive point, I should like, if my hon. Friend will allow me, to consider the point and let him know my conclusions. I am, however, fairly confident that the advice I am giving is sound.

---