| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness David moved Amendment No. 100:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 100 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 101. These are probing amendments. Clause 21 seeks to give staff members of schools power physically to restrain pupils who are injuring persons or damaging property. It is welcome to members of a joint working group of the Council of Local Education Authorities (CLEA) and the teachers' organisations, which has produced guidelines to deal with allegations of physical or sexual abuse made against classroom teachers and heads. The working group is aware of many allegations made against teachers which would have been difficult to sustain had teachers the right physically to intervene in a range of situations; for example, from fighting between pupils and bullying to destruction of property. Existing common law rights are not sufficient by way of a reassurance to teachers faced with the need to act.
It is unfortunate that the new clause was needed, but it was accepted at Report stage in the House of Commons. I have a briefing, the meaning of which is not very clear to me. Perhaps I can read it because apparently it contains genuine queries which should be resolved. It states:
I apologise that the wording is not clear, but there may be some genuine queries in the briefing. That is why I read it out. I do not understand it, but I hope the Minister will have a good response from his civil servants. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: There is a wide welcome for the statutory enactment of what has been the common law position with regard to teachers' rights; that comes in the first part of this clause. The noble
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness, Lady David, did not understand what she was saying and I must admit that I too have some doubts about it. I will read Hansard carefully and there may be some points to which I need to respond.
It may help if I say a little about what the clause seeks to do. It is intended to help teachers, and on all sides of the Chamber we welcome that, as the teacher unions welcome it. Its purpose is to clarify the circumstances in which teachers and other staff--it is important that other staff be included--authorised by the head teacher may use reasonable force where necessary to stop pupils from harming themselves or others, committing a crime or causing serious disruption.
As we all know, at present many head teachers and teachers--we hear this from the unions themselves--are afraid to lay a finger on pupils for fear of being accused of assault of one kind or another. There have been cases of teachers being investigated by social services departments or by the police for trivial instances of restraint of pupils such as intervening to break up a playground fight. Obviously that is not right and we feel that teachers should be afforded some protection from charges of assault which can arise in those situations. We believe that keeping discipline is a major part of a teacher's job. Again, I think there would be general agreement on that.
Teachers, and other supervisory staff, should be allowed to use physical restraint in certain prescribed circumstances without fear of prosecution. I stress, though, that this has absolutely nothing whatever--I say this knowing the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady David--to do with corporal punishment. That, in the maintained sector, remains unlawful. Prevention and punishment are two very different things.
I must also emphasise that where a teacher has to restrain a pupil, he or she may only use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances. Ultimately it is for the courts to decide what is reasonable or not in the circumstances. It is not something the department can lay down. But I can say that we shall issue detailed guidance on the use of physical restraint, again, after consulting with the relevant interests. I have to stress again that what is or is not reasonable has in the end to be decided by the courts.
I shall look carefully tomorrow at precisely what the noble Baroness had to say. Should I feel that it is necessary to respond to any further points, I shall be more than happy to do so.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am very pleased indeed that he has repeated that there is no question of bringing back corporal punishment in schools. I just wish that it was also forbidden in independent schools. It is quite ridiculous that it is not. I am grateful for his response. I hope that this rather mysterious amendment will become clearer in the course of time. I do not know whether the Minister
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Detention outside school hours lawful despite absence of parental consent]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 102:
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall refer briefly to Amendment No. 103. Amendment No. 102 deals with the issue of parental notification with regard to a child being detained outside school hours. All parents have come across the situation where notices that came from the school may have been slightly reluctantly accepted for delivery by pupils and have occasionally ended up in the pocket of school clothes in the wash rather than being handed to the parents. There is also the forgetting to give the parent the notice and the quite genuine case of the parent not being given information.
If we are to have good relationships between home and school it is important that the home knows what is happening. It is also important because in a variety of circumstances, particularly with the older pupil of, say, 14, the parent may assume that he or she is carrying out a responsibility with regard to younger siblings such as being available when they are home from school. The amendment is quite clear. Anyone who has had children knows that they have a marked reluctance to pass on bad news. If we are to have good relationships between home and school, this is a good way of achieving them.
The 48 hours' notice in rural areas would allow for the direct transmission of information and the possibility for parents to make alternative provision. I recollect that on previous occasions the Minister has said that this would be a normal practice in rural areas. I believe that it would be helpful to strike a good balance between the crime being committed, whatever it is, and the punishment following shortly afterwards and ensuring that there is adequate time for parents to make alternative arrangements.
We are dealing with wording that is put on the face of the Bill. We have to consider that there are occasions--I say this as someone who has very seldom come across them, but I am sure that even the National Association of Headteachers and CHA would accept it occurs once in a blue moon--when a head teacher may behave unreasonably. It is remotely possible. I know that it will come as a shock to most Members of the Committee who have never come across it, but it is a very serious point.
We tend to talk about the relationship between home and school as though it was always dealing with two parties who are in a state of calm deliberation and making judgments very carefully. Just occasionally things go wrong at the school end and at the home end. I am talking about a time when one of the parents may be terminally ill and there may be enormous stress
Lord Henley: The noble Baroness suggested possible criticisms of the NAHT and CHA. I would never wish to do that.
Page 19, line 23, leave out from ("himself)") to end of line 28.
"There are, however, two aspects of the clause which CLEA and the local education authority associations believe should be explored further. First, 37A(1) and sub-clauses (a) and (b) are precisely to the point; (c) is less so because it is altogether more subjective and begins to blur the otherwise clear difference between physical restraint and corporal punishment. The Government should be asked to provide illustrations of circumstances in which, while no pupil was committing an offence nor causing injury to, or damaging the property of, any person, yet it was necessary for a member of staff to use force to change these circumstances.
"Secondly, and arguably more seriously, the Government should be asked to reconsider sub-clause (4) which defines 'member of the staff', in relation to the school as a teacher and any other person who, with the authority of the head, has lawful control or charge of pupils at the school. At present the definition includes, for example, classroom assistants, laboratory assistants, welfare assistants and parent and other volunteers in respect of whom there can be no guarantee they will have received appropriate training either in the necessary skills to be employed in physically restraining children and young people or in the particular circumstances when the use of force is appropriate".
"If members of the Lords are not satisfied with Government responses to questions on sub-clauses (1)(c) and (4), then it is recommended that support for clause 37A be confined to (1)(a) and (b), (3) and (4), subject to a re-definition in (4) of 'member of staff' to be restricted to a teaching member of staff".
Page 20, line 39, after ("given") insert ("directly").
10.30 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page