| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I am sure that the guidance, when it is issued after consultation, will reflect that point, although I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is always a limit to the extent to which guidance issued in good faith from my Department can, or should seek to, detail every conceivable circumstance that might arise in the classroom. A balance has to be struck between giving teachers reasonable guidance, reassurance and examples of best practice, and seeking to set out in black and white every conceivable circumstance that might arise and what can be done in black and white. However, I accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that we will endeavour to ensure that the guidance that will follow consultation, should the new clause be accepted by the House, will strike that balance.
The new clause would introduce a special provision for teachers, and it should have no effect on the ability of other professional groups, or indeed the public, to rely on defences currently available under the general law when they are prosecuted or sued for damages for assault.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 40 simply insert the new clause in the Education Act 1996 immediately after the sections concerning corporal punishment and before the new clause concerning detention. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the House, including my hon. Friends, about the intention behind the new clause. The Opposition spokesman has indicated his general support and I hope that the House will also be able to support the new clause.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I wish only that the Minister had been as willing to consider the consequences of the defeat of
27 Jan 1997 : Column 86
Mr. Pawsey:
I am not seeking to be mischievous, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if better discipline were maintained in the nation's classrooms, there would be less risk of fighting in playgrounds and therefore less risk to teachers intervening in fights?
Mr. Kilfoyle:
That is self-evident, but I posit the question that I put to the hon. Member in Committee: does he see the distinction between discipline, which is interiorised, and order, which is imposed? That question goes to the core of the quality of teaching, parenting and many other issues.
Notwithstanding the apparently helpful intentions of the Secretary of State, there may be grounds for the expression of some caution in respect of the proposed subsection (1)(c)--which the Minister mentioned--because it is broadly worded. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth also intervened on the point. Proposed subsections (1)(a) and (b) are more specifically defined, but I wish to seek reassurance that the phrase
I hope that the Minister will expand on his earlier comments and clarify the issue I have raised. I also hope that his assurance on the matter will be covered by the guidelines that will emerge from the consultations that he announced. The Minister announced so many consultations in Committee that he earned the nickname of the Minister for consultations, but the vital point about
27 Jan 1997 : Column 87
Mr. Forth:
Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) has posed a reasonable question and I can give him a preliminary answer. Good order--which is, I think, at the core of his question--could be defined as when pupils' education is not being seriously or persistently disrupted. When the guidelines emerge, I suspect that words such as "seriously" and "persistently" will provide the key to the question. We are not expecting teachers to use physical restraint to deal with trivial or, dare I say, routine classroom difficulties of the kind that one expects in a roomful of boisterous, eight, 10 or 12-year-olds, but if there is serious or persistent disruption, whether fighting or abuse of property or people, the new clause could possibly come into effect. If the disruption were not serious or persistent, we would not expect the measures to be used.
We have a broad basis on which to proceed, but we will want to fill in the detail after consultation. I know that the hon. Member for Walton is not suggesting that we should not consult, but I am conscious of the number of times that I have undertaken to consult. I hope that we can all agree that that is the right way forward. Through my own experience in the Department, I have learnt that consulting is not only wise but usually fruitful and I am sure that a much better set of guidelines will emerge after consultation than would emerge without it. With that justification, I hope that I have managed to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Ms Margaret Hodge (Barking):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you tell us whether the Government intend to make a statement on how they will deal with clauses 4 and 5 as they are consequential on new clause 3, which was rejected by the House? Do they intend to amend or withdraw those clauses?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I have no information whatever on what the Government intend to do.
Mr. Kilfoyle:
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of new clause 8 is to require local public inquiries to be held when an authority proposes new schools, significant changes in their character or enlargement. It is consistent with the view that the House expressed earlier that planning should take place for the provision and character of school places. I am sure that once again the Government will agree with the Opposition.
Changes to schools always arouse public interest. Any hon. Member with experience of proposals to close schools will know that they invariably meet resistance. Indeed, in a recent attempt to remove surplus places in the authority in my constituency, I experienced both ends of the spectrum. As we all know and agree, the prudent use of public resources demands that the availability of school places should be kept in step with need. Therefore, where there are too many, some must be removed. At some point, removing surplus places must mean closing schools. Although everyone accepts the rationality of that argument, people very often find it hard to accept that their school should be closed.
In long and involved debates in Committee about the optimum number of surplus places that ought to be held in a given authority, the Minister and I did not disagree that the figure should be around the 10 per cent. mark. Nevertheless, national figures show that there are wide variations and large fluctuations between authorities and between primary and secondary sectors, which must be viewed rationally by the Government of the day and the local authority responsible.
Present procedures for deciding which schools need to be closed, and how, quite properly require public consultation--there we go, mentioning public consultation again. The present law requires local authorities to publish notices of their intention, to invite comment from interested parties and, after consideration of the consultation, to submit final proposals to the Secretary of State. Having taken into account any further representations, the Secretary of State must determine whether the proposal should go ahead or be modified, which was the essence of our argument against new clause 3, and against clause 3 in Committee. I make no apology for repeating that the House saw fit to remove the clause from the Bill.
The procedure is open, but because a local authority proposes the original plans and conducts the consultation and review process, it is open to the charge of being a judge in its own court or of being partial. Although the final decision rests with the Secretary of State, objectors sometimes suspect that the process is a sham because the outcome has been determined in advance. I am sure that LEAs are open and responsible public bodies and that such suspicion is invariably without foundation, but the structure of the process lends itself to such an interpretation. That is despite the fact that the lengthy process could require publication of the plans, consultation, revision of the plans and further
27 Jan 1997 : Column 89
It is normally expected that the Secretary of State will require about six months to consider such proposals; on occasions, no doubt for good reasons, consideration by the Department for Education and Employment can extend considerably beyond that period. The new clause's purpose, therefore, is to address such a flaw in the present system. The substitution of a formal local public inquiry under the control of an independent person for the local authority's consideration of comments on its original proposals will enable objectors to feel that they have been given a fair hearing--certainly fairer than they feel they have now.
If the inquiry comes down in favour of the LEA's original proposals or if the authority accepts recommendations made to the inquiry, it is likely that further objection will be much reduced, if not removed completely. Such a process would not preclude the LEA from rejecting all or part of the inquiry's findings, but, if it chose to do so, that fact would be all the more obvious.
The procedure would benefit the Secretary of State. Given that she is rather beleaguered these days, I think that she would welcome that. Instead of employing central Government officials to cover ground that had already been trodden locally in the review of the proposals and any complaints or objections, the Secretary of State would have to hand a separately published report from an independent source with the evidence recorded, analysed and set out. It is likely that that would save the time of DFEE officials and facilitate the Secretary of State's decision-making process.
When the open process of public inquiry had reached a conclusion and the authority was willing to act on it, the Secretary of State could give approval with some confidence. On the other hand, if there were conflict, it would be clear that the Secretary of State would need to consider carefully how any outstanding differences should be resolved.
The new clause makes it clear that the expense of a local public inquiry should be incurred only when the scope and seriousness of the proposed changes were of sufficient magnitude to warrant it. The Secretary of State's regulatory power to determine and modify in the light of experience what the threshold should be before an inquiry were triggered would afford some flexibility. It would be open to a local authority to invoke the procedure voluntarily if it believed that the seriousness of the case justified its doing so.
"engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school"
will not generate a loophole that sanctions the use of physical restraint in circumstances that require some other, more appropriate, action from a teacher to diffuse the tension of a potential disciplinary or behavioural problem. For example, if two pupils were engaged in a disruptive verbal dispute, might proposed subsection (1)(c) legitimise the hasty use of physical force to place them at a distance from each other when a verbal reprimand or use of the detention would be sufficient?
'(1) In section 36 of the Education Act 1996 the following shall be inserted after subsection (3)--
"(3A) Where an authority has--
(a) published proposals requiring the approval of the Secretary of State under section 37 below;
(b) received objections exceeding in number a minimum specified in regulations; or
(c) published proposals affecting more than a minimum number of educational institutions specified in regulations
it shall cause to take place a local public inquiry to be chaired by an independent person of suitable standing.
(3B) A local public inquiry under this section shall after hearing such evidence and representations as it considers appropriate, prepare and publish a report making recommendations as to the proposals".
(2) In section 37(5) of the Education Act 1996 after the first "he" the following words shall be inserted--"shall have regard to the recommendations of any local public inquiry established under section 36(3A) and".'.--[Mr. Kilfoyle.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |