---

'For section 548 (no right to give corporal punishment), section 549 (interpretation of section 548) and section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school) of the Education Act 1996 the following section is substituted--
"Corporal punishment lawful in certain circumstances
548.--(1) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given at school to a pupil to whom this section applies on disciplinary grounds, giving the punishment can be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of the authority given to him by the governing body in accordance with subsection (5) below.
(2) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment was given at a school to a pupil to whom this section applies on disciplinary grounds, his punishment shall not be held to be inhuman or degrading if it was given in accordance with the conditions set out in subsection (5) below.
(3) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment was given at a school to a pupil to whom this section applies on disciplinary grounds, his punishment shall

28 Jan 1997 : Column 215

not be held to be unlawful by virtue of the absence of his or his parent's consent to it if the conditions set out in subsection (5) are satisfied.
(4) This section applies to any pupil who is attending--
(a) a school maintained by a local education authority;
(b) a grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school; or
(c) a city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts.
(5) The conditions referred to in subsection (3) are--
(a) that the governing body and head teacher of the school must have previously determined, and made generally known within the school, that corporal punishment is one of the measures that may be taken with a view to regulating the conduct of pupils:
(b) that the punishment must be imposed by the head teacher or by another teacher at the school specifically or generally authorised by the governing body for the purpose; and
(c) that the punishment must be reasonable in all the circumstances.
(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) whether a punishment is reasonable, the following matters in particular shall be taken into account--
(a) whether the punishment constitutes a proportionate punishment in the circumstances of the case; and
(b) any special circumstances relevant to its imposition on the pupil which are known to the person imposing it (or of which he ought reasonably to be aware) including in particular--
(i) the pupil's disciplinary record,
(ii) any special educational needs he may have,
(iii) the pupil's state of health, and
(iv) the pupil's age".'.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall briefly, and somewhat unusually, say what the new clause is not about. It is not about beating, thrashing, flogging or any of the other emotive phrases so beloved by those who oppose corporal punishment. New clause 5 is about discipline in schools and caning. It is, at all times, about reasonable punishment.

7.15 pm

For some time, I, like many hon. Members, have been concerned about the degree of disruption that is taking place in some of the nation's schools. That indiscipline is increasingly reflected in the number of exclusions that take place. Exclusion damages a child much more than one or two strokes of the cane. The effect of exclusion is to put a child outside the school gates, but then the very children who would gain most from being in the classroom and benefiting from education are thrust outside.

If the new clause was adopted, it would simply provide schools and teachers with an additional sanction that they might use in place of exclusions. Caning would be used only in serious cases of misdemeanour when otherwise exclusion would take place. In the case of an excluded child, the new clause would enable the school to contact a parent and to offer an alternative to the exclusion: that alternative would be caning. If the parent was agreeable to the child being caned, he or she would have to say so in writing.

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman referred to the damage that might be done to the child who was excluded. Does

28 Jan 1997 : Column 216

he agree that damage is done indirectly to other children in the classroom, through the high cost of providing home tuition for the growing number of pupils who have been excluded?

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman clearly knows much about the subject and I congratulate him on the strength of his intervention. He makes a valid point and I am grateful to him.

Express permission from the parent would allow the school to cane the child instead of excluding him. Without that permission, caning could and would not take place. In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 13 November 1996, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that nearly 9,000 exclusions took place in the school year 1994-95. That was the number of children permanently excluded from secondary schools. The House will note the word "permanently". How many youngsters were temporarily excluded? I frankly do not know and neither does the Department. However, I believe the figure to be substantial and, more to the point, it is growing. It has been argued that the number of pupils excluded is relatively small and I am sure that it is, but the House will understand that for the individual child who has been excluded, the figure is 100 per cent.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): If no one in a school was prepared to cane, or if the licensed caner was away for the week, would there be a residual obligation on the local education authority to ensure that it had someone on its books who could pop round and flog people who needed it?

Mr. Pawsey: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend, whose intervention was not worthy of his intellect.

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

Mr. Pawsey: No. I shall give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.

Recently, I received a booklet produced by the Commission for Racial Equality, entitled, "Exclusion from School: the Public Cost". It sets out in considerable detail the cost involved in permanent exclusions, and maintains that one permanent exclusion, starting in 1994-95 and extending into 1995-96, would cost £5,134 a year.

To that figure, however, must be added the cost of the involvement of various agencies. For example, 20 per cent. of those who are excluded use social services, at a cost of about £1,100; 20 per cent. use the health service, which costs about £100; and 25 per cent. incur a cost to the criminal justice system of about £2,000 per case.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: Let me make it absolutely clear that my advocacy of corporal punishment owes nothing at all to hard cash. It is based on the truism that a pound funding exclusion is a pound less for schools--a pound less that we might use in the classroom. I believe, therefore, that exclusions can be regarded as a misuse of scarce

28 Jan 1997 : Column 217

resources. That argument would apply most especially if a viable alternative to exclusion were available. The new clause offers that alternative.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South): Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the number of exclusions dates from the time when corporal punishment was first removed? That should mean a financial cost benefit, but the real problem is the behaviour that precedes the exclusion; if we had a decent deterrent in schools, the appalling behaviour that leads to the exclusions would not happen.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and I am grateful to him.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way presently.

I invite the House to consider for a moment the impact of both temporary and permanent exclusions. Clearly, there will be a substantial impact on the individual child. Exclusions substantially damage the child, who is being deprived of a reasonable education.

Several of the members of Standing Committee D, which considered the Bill for well over 40 hours, are present today. They will note that there is a fundamental difference between the new clause that I tabled in Committee and the one to which I am speaking at the moment. Principally, the reference to corporal punishment would no longer be contained in the school-parent contract. For a child to be caned, it would be necessary for the parent to give specific permission, in writing, for each individual offence.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I accept that a blanket provision, for the period of a child's school life, is simply not on. I now give way to my hon. and persistent Friend.

Mr. Rowe: I am most grateful. Has my hon. Friend been able to make any assessment of how many of the children excluded from school have the kind of parent who would accede to such a request, and of how effective corporal punishment would be on the damaged children who are most commonly excluded?

Mr. Pawsey: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is certainly yes. I have in front of me The Sunday Telegraph of 3 November 1996. The headline clearly says, "Bring back the cane, say voters" and the article tells us that 68 per cent. support corporal punishment. That 68 per cent. includes parents who are prepared to let their children receive corporal punishment.

---