---

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Pawsey: Let me make a little progress.

The new clause lays down rules for the way in which corporal punishment would be administered, in line with case law and opinions given under the European convention on human rights. As the parent will have given

28 Jan 1997 : Column 218

permission and the punishment is at all times to be reasonable, European law would not be breached. It is also worth recalling and repeating that at no time has the European Court of Human Rights found or ruled against the United Kingdom in matters of corporal punishment in schools.

The new clause would ensure that teachers could smack a delinquent child without any risk of civil prosecution, and removes the risk of parents changing their mind when learning that their child might be subject to corporal punishment. Let me make it absolutely clear that the new clause is permissive, not prescriptive.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): Does my hon. Friend agree that he is being a little mealy-mouthed, on the basis that a good, sound thrashing is to the advantage of the child and of the local authority that pays for that child? Will he be a little more robust in his arguments in the remainder of his speech?

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful advice, but I do not intend to take it. I am convinced that I am being sufficiently robust; I am spelling out in some detail the fact that the new clause is responsible and would improve the quality and standard of state education in our schools.

The new clause is permissive, not prescriptive. It does not force or require schools to adopt corporal punishment. It merely provides corporal punishment as an added sanction that might be available in cases of severe misdemeanour. It should be remembered that the caning would at all times be reasonable.

A common theme running through the Government's education reforms has been devolving additional power to individual schools. Conservative Members do not believe that all schools should be identical, with identical punishments or identical administrations. We want choice and diversity.

If some schools decide to accept the principle of corporal punishment in place of exclusions, so be it; they are not forced to do so: the choice lies with the individual school. The introduction of the cane would be a decision taken by the head teacher, the governors and the parents. They would decide what was best for their children and their school. The new clause simply gives added choice to individual schools.

Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been much concerned about the increase in the number of premature teacher retirements. I suspect that one of the reasons for those retirements is the indiscipline in some classes. I believe--with, I am sure, the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends--that there are few who enter the teaching profession to grow rich. Most teachers enter the profession from a sense of genuine vocation and because of the satisfaction that they derive from imparting knowledge. That satisfaction must be much reduced when a teacher is faced with a disruptive, undisciplined and at times violent class.

Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North): From my 23 years' experience in the teaching profession, including 12 years at a comprehensive with 1,100 boys at King's Cross, I believe that there is a place for moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, but I have not yet understood from my hon. Friend's argument how the new

28 Jan 1997 : Column 219

clause would work. Would corporal punishment be an alternative to every possible exclusion order, or would it apply only in particular cases relating to particular offences? We cannot pick and choose: pupils would look for consistency, and the alternative should be available either in all cases or in none.

Mr. Pawsey: I would leave it up to the school. I am anxious that schools should have greater powers. I want individual schools to express their views on the issue. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who said:

"I trust head teachers to behave in a way that protects their pupils and to ensure that members of staff behave in the most professional manner."--[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 December 1996; c. 426.]

She is right. The overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are committed both to their profession and to the children under their charge.

7.30 pm

Recently, one of my constituents--a well-respected, retired teacher of English--said in my local newspaper:

"When I started in 1958 I very occasionally caned the odd miscreant so that the class could study quietly and listen and learn. Children knew that they were expected to behave reasonably and that there were sanctions if they did not."

That teacher spoke with 35 years' experience of teaching English in a secondary school. The House will note the use of the word "occasionally". As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, the cane is a powerful deterrent. The fact that it exists is enough in most cases to ensure classroom discipline.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), in polls conducted by newspapers, 68 per cent. of those polled were in favour of corporal punishment. Interestingly, that support was consistent across the political spectrum. The principal question that the House has to answer is: what does the greater damage to a child, exclusion or being caned?

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): I note that my hon. Friend has made provision for female pupils to be caned. Is he serious that girls should be caned in school? To be honest, I think that that is barbaric.

Mr. Pawsey: The decision is not one that my hon. Friend or I will make--it is a matter for the school. If it is thought appropriate in a specific case--

Mr. Steinberg rose--

Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.

In the United Kingdom, the teacher acts in loco parentis--in place of the parent. The teacher should, therefore, act as any reasonable parent would.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I venture the opinion that, if girls behave in as barbaric a way as some boys, they deserve to be treated identically?

Mr. Pawsey: I think that the House will agree that learning best takes place in a reasonably disciplined environment. The new clause will merely ensure that

28 Jan 1997 : Column 220

teachers have an added sanction that will allow them to teach a class without too much disruption. Conservative Members have a free vote tonight and I understand that Opposition Members also have a free vote. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House can come together in agreement that we want the best for children. We want our children to be educated in a reasonably disciplined environment. That is all that the new clause does.

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I could have gone to the theatre tonight, but I am glad that I did not because the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was hilarious and I am grateful for the entertainment that he provided. Anyone who took the issue seriously could no longer do so having heard the hon. Gentleman.

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would set out what constitutes "reasonable" corporal punishment. The details of his new clause take up several pages of the amendment paper, but I am still no clearer about what he means by reasonable corporal punishment. The new clause fails to clarify a number of important points. He mentioned that the cane would be the implement to be used and implied that there is such a thing as "reasonable" use of the cane. I should be interested to hear a little more about what he means by reasonable use. He has not made clear in the new clause or in his speech which parts of the body are to be struck by the cane. We used to get struck on the head at my school--[Interruption.] As hon. Members will be aware, it worked very well. Is it to be the head, the hands, the backside or the legs? It is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's comments what he proposes.

I had also hoped that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth would explain what he means by "reasonable punishment" and what is the boundary between reasonable chastisement and assault. I have had to deal with that boundary because, before I came to the House, I worked in social services for many years, dealing with children who had received corporal punishment, some of which might be defined by more civilised Members of Parliament as unreasonable. For instance, would the hon. Gentleman accept that if a child's body is marked, it is unreasonable chastisement? I am happy to give way for him to answer because those areas concern me. I have had to give evidence in a court of law in cases in which children had received what I and the local authority regarded as unreasonable chastisement. They had weals on their buttocks and legs. Is that reasonable or unreasonable? I want to know because it is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Jamieson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Oxford English Dictionary" definition of corporal punishment is as follows:

"Punishment inflicted on the body, originally including death, mutilation, branding, bodily confinement, irons, the pillory, etc."?

Is he also aware that in 1868 the House abandoned corporal punishment in the Army? Would he suggest that pupils could avoid it by joining the cadets?

---