---

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I heard one or two hon. Members saying that they would subscribe to the dictionary definition in its entirety.

Mr. Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made

28 Jan 1997 : Column 221

matters even more confusing because he did not correct the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who was talking about "flogging"--I guess he was thinking that he might apply to be the flogger in Devon after the next election--or the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who talked about "thrashing"? Clearly, both those hon. Members used language that suggested that they were unreasonable, but the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not correct them or say that they were going beyond the bounds of what he regarded as reasonable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear at the start that interventions should be brief and to the point. That applies to all hon. Members who participate in the debate.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) makes the point that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not exactly discourage those of his colleagues who were more enthusiastic than he was about making bestial noises on this subject; nor has he intervened to define "reasonable" and "unreasonable". May I invite him instead to tell us what he regards as inhuman and degrading punishment?

Would the punishment of a boy or girl in a public arena be deemed degrading or inhuman? Punishment in front of other pupils used to happen regularly in my school. Would it be inhuman or degrading if, for good effect, pupils' clothing was lifted or removed when they were being caned? Does that excite the hon. Gentleman? It is important that he should clarify those points. This is a sick and sad new clause and it needs further explanation.

Mr. John Carlisle: Many Conservative Members have suffered the indignity of caning, which most Opposition Members probably have not suffered, for various reasons such as fathers' income. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that no clothing had to be removed? In fact, many of us put cardboard in our pants in an attempt to remit the punishment. It was degrading and painful, weals were put on one's buttocks and blood was drawn, but it was done on the basis that, because of the punishment, one did not commit that particular offence again. That is what the new clause is all about.

Mr. Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it did him the world of good, why is he sitting on the Conservative Benches?

I made it clear on Second Reading that my opposition to these attempts to restore corporal punishment was based on my experience and observations in a secondary modern school. Like the hon. Gentleman, I experienced various forms of corporal punishment. I was reminded of that last summer, when I attended the funeral of the head teacher of that secondary modern school, for whom I had a degree of respect. He did not cane or slipper me--he was a decent teacher and a good human being.

At that funeral, I met my former physical education teacher, whom I had not seen for 35 years, since leaving the school. Having shaken hands with him, I said that I owed him an apology. "What is it, David?" he asked. I replied that, 35 years ago, I had failed to turn up for the slipper, having been last out of the changing rooms after

28 Jan 1997 : Column 222

one of his lessons. We used to receive corporal punishment if we were the last to finish getting changed after PE or rugby. When I told him that, he was embarrassed to be reminded of the regime used in my school 35 years ago.

Also at that funeral was my former deputy head teacher, who was my form teacher in my first year at secondary modern school. His behaviour as deputy head teacher made me believe passionately that corporal punishment was inhuman and degrading and that it should be done away with as soon as possible. Each week, in front of our form--a mixed class of boys and girls aged 11 and 12--boys from across the school were wheeled in and slippered.

I remember vividly one boy who would now be regarded as having special needs, or even as being delicate. Each week, that child screamed, wept and had to be helped out of the class room. Eventually, he was transferred to special education--damaged for life by that experience. That sort of brutality stuck with me and I was reminded of it when listening to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. On Second Reading, I mentioned that, to me, the best possible reason for arguing against the restoration of corporal punishment was my memories of being in 1J at the age of 11, watching the same boys coming back, week after week. That proved to me, even as a simple soul at the age of 11, that corporal punishment did not work. If it was a deterrent, it obviously did not work in respect of the sort of boys who attended my school.

7.45 pm

I went back to my school in the autumn and asked the staff specifically about the abolition of corporal punishment and about the current regime used in place of corporal punishment. They gave me a detailed breakdown of what they call "discipline for learning", which is the system now used at the school. It is based on positive rewards for good behaviour, a range of rules that are understood by pupils, a gradual grading of rewards and behaviour checks and punishments and, at the end of the line and for serious misbehaviour, exclusion--which is rarely, if ever, used.

The staff showed me cards that are given out by teachers to pupils who have done good work, for example, asking the pupil to go for coffee with a teacher as a reward--an honour--for good behaviour. Teachers give pupils vouchers--positive rewards for good behaviour--which contrasts sharply with the negative regime that I had to put up with when I attended that school 35 years ago.

Many teachers are desperate about the current state of the education service, but I have not met one teacher who argues in favour of the return of corporal punishment. I have visited many schools, but I have not met one head teacher who argues for the return of corporal punishment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What the hon. Gentleman has described is a serious abuse of corporal punishment, not moderate and reasonable corporal punishment. I do not believe that corporal punishment should ever be used in response to bad or late work, or in the absurd cases cited by the hon. Gentleman: it must be strictly confined to

28 Jan 1997 : Column 223

serious offences, for which it can be a suitable punishment. Abuse of that sort should be condemned and I support the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.

Mr. Hinchliffe: In my opinion, corporal punishment is in itself an abuse of children.

I note with great interest that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has been unable to define what is reasonable or unreasonable corporal punishment. Therefore, if the new clause were passed, the whole issue would end up in the courts, and no one wants that. If the hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, he has a duty to state exactly what he means by reasonable and unreasonable.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): I support the new clause because I start from the premise that we demand of our teachers--especially our head teachers--that they maintain an orderly and disciplined school; only in that framework can they provide the environment for disciplined education and learning. My concern is that, since the 1960s, we have progressively withdrawn all the sanctions, controls and deterrents with which teachers can maintain discipline.

Mr. Mike Hall (Warrington, South): Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many teachers have contacted him demanding the reintroduction of corporal punishment in our schools?

Mr. Arnold: Parents and teachers have contacted me--I shall refer later to teachers' views on the subject. The new clause proposes that a deterrent be placed at the disposal of schools to be exercised according to the judgment of head teachers. I think that all hon. Members will agree that teachers are professionals who can exercise good judgment. That is a key element of the new clause. Since the 1960s, we have increasingly sent defenceless teachers into the classroom, and it is no surprise that they have avoided maintaining discipline or tried to pass the buck to someone else--invariably unsuccessfully.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman assist the House by informing us which party was in government when corporal punishment was abolished in the 1980s?

Mr. Arnold: It was a Conservative Government with Labour local education authorities. I will return to that point later.

The Bill is beginning to reverse the trend of denying schools the means of maintaining discipline. Part IV of the Bill moves in that direction, and I believe that we should take a further step forward. The corporal punishment sanction should never have been withdrawn. I was a member of the local education authority of the Labour-controlled Northamptonshire county council in 1982, and I remember well when the sanction was withdrawn. Teachers' representatives appeared before the education committee and told us, "Stick to your guns. We are right behind you; we must have this sanction available, even if we do not use it. It is a deterrent."

We advanced our case, as did the teachers' representatives. However, when the crunch came, they voted with the Labour and Liberal groups to abolish corporal punishment in schools. When I asked them why

28 Jan 1997 : Column 224

they had bothered to argue to retain corporal punishment as a deterrent to be used according to their professional judgment, their rather supine response was, "We have to live with the Labour group who control the education authority, so we must go along with them and not upset them." As a consequence, teachers in our classrooms are defenceless and have no adequate deterrents.

We are discussing the issue today in a beautiful wood-panelled hall--our meeting in Northamptonshire took place in a similar setting--and we are seeking to outbid each other by claiming, "We are not barbaric; we think that corporal punishment is uncivilised." However, it is the teachers who have to maintain disciplinary standards in our schools and it is the teachers whom we are sending defenceless into the classroom. I ask hon. Members to empower the teachers and to demonstrate our trust in their judgment. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause.

---