| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Baroness tells me that the clause is too wide. I am amazed by my moderation in respect of this clause.
The clause is intended to clarify the circumstances in which teachers and other staff authorised by the head teacher may use reasonable force--that is, force that is reasonable in all the circumstances and not just for trivial instances of misbehaviour--where necessary to stop pupils from harming themselves or others, committing a crime or causing serious disruption. It has been welcomed by most of those in the teaching profession and by all of the teacher unions. However, these amendments would significantly weaken the clause, by removing subsection (1)(c) which clarifies that reasonable force may be used to prevent pupils from disrupting good order and discipline at school, and by restricting the application of the clause to teachers only and not other staff authorised by the head. I shall come to that later.
On the question of the disruption of good order and discipline, my letter to the noble Baroness referred to an incident at the Ridings School in Calderdale. So far as I know, there was no complaint against that teacher. But we hear from time to time of other cases of defiant misbehaviour where the teacher's career is threatened by his or her actions. For example, a teacher tried to stop a girl from repeatedly switching a radio on during a drama class. That teacher ended up with a police caution for assault. That could have had a serious effect on that teacher's career. Another teacher was prosecuted for common assault after removing a defiant pupil from the classroom. I do not know how he did that, but he received a conditional discharge after pleading guilty on the advice of his lawyer. Subsection (1)(c) covers just those kinds of case.
The common law may provide a defence to teachers who are prosecuted, or sued for damages, for assaulting a pupil in the circumstances I have just described. However, the purpose of the clause is to codify the common law, by setting out the circumstances in which a teacher and other members of staff at a school may use reasonable force in situations such as this. The amendment to remove subsection (1)(c), if passed, would seriously weaken the clause, and could make it much more difficult for teachers to prevent pupils from causing serious disruption at a school, at least where that disruption did not involve a criminal offence, or injury to persons or damage to property.
If the clause were enacted without subsection (1)(c), and a teacher intervened in the circumstances I have described, he or she might arguably be guilty of assaulting the pupil. In practice, the likely effect of this amendment could be that teachers would continue to be advised by their unions that they should not attempt to restrain pupils for fear of being prosecuted for assault.
Disruptive behaviour in our schools is unacceptable and we should provide schools with the support they need for securing the good order which is essential for providing good education. We have to face the fact that some pupils will deliberately cause unacceptable disruption to lessons that prevents other children from learning, and that sometimes, as a last resort, that has to be dealt with by use of some moderate physical intervention such as leading the pupil away.
Amendment No. 36 seeks to restrict the application of the clause to teachers only. If the clause applied only to teachers, other members of staff such as playground supervisors or classroom assistants authorised by the head teacher to have control or charge of pupils would not be protected. That could make it more difficult for head teachers to use non-teaching staff to supervise children.
As the noble Baroness said, I pointed out in my letter to her of 10th March that it might not be appropriate for that to be extended to such staff as groundsmen or cleaners because they would not be likely to have the appropriate training that others would have acquired over their years in school. That is a matter to be considered in due course and one that we could come to later. However, we believe that properly authorised non-teaching staff--in some cases that might even be volunteers--should have the protection of the clause if they are to do their jobs properly. An example of the circumstances in which a volunteer might properly be put in charge of pupils by their teacher might be where a parent was accompanying a school excursion and the parent might well have to step in when a teacher was not nearby in order to stop a child doing something dangerous. I am sure that even the noble Baroness would accept that.
I trust that my explanation is sufficient to persuade the noble Baroness that Clause 23 is a very necessary clause. It is one that is needed and it is one that will be welcomed throughout the teaching profession. I hope the noble Baroness will realise that her amendments would fatally weaken the clause in such a manner that it would have relatively little effect, would probably be meaningless and would not provide the protection which I believe our teachers and others appropriately authorised deserve to have.
Baroness David: My Lords, I think I made it clear that I recognise that the clause is necessary and that it has been welcomed by teachers and the unions. I totally agree that disruptive behaviour is not acceptable. However, there may be some complications which perhaps have not been thought of. I should like to think that the Minister might ponder those before, if we do have it, another stage of the Bill. In his reply he admitted
that the problem of which staff should have the right to use restraint is one which should be gone into a little further. He said that both in his letter and in his reply just now. He said that this would be gone into further and that the position is not totally satisfactory as it stands. With, I hope, his willingness to look into this matter a little further and with such assurances as he has given that some matters concerning the staff will be looked at, I shall withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Detention outside school hours lawful despite absence of parental consent]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 37:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we are back to the issue of the trouser pocket and the schoolboy or schoolgirl who does not always do what he or she is supposed to do. The note to say that the child will be in detention, the responsibility for collecting a sibling from either lower down the same school or from an adjacent school, the responsibility for doing something at home and the fact that parents surely have a right to know at what time their children will leave school are all important features of this amendment. It does not seek to prescribe the means but allows schools to use their judgment. It places on the head teacher a responsibility to be satisfied that the parent or guardian is aware of the detention and of the time at which the pupil is due to leave school. There are occasions when children would rather not tell parents that they have been kept in detention. The parents may not view the detention with total equanimity. Therefore, losing the note might be preferable to getting into trouble twice. That is perhaps a more mild version of the problems.
There is a serious issue behind the proposed amendment. In the event of something going tragically wrong, it is important for the school to be able to demonstrate that the parent was aware of the fact that the child would be leaving school later. Accidents do happen. A younger child may not be collected from school and may be injured in a road accident. It is a serious issue and a responsibility which we believe the head teacher ought to be required to meet in order that the child can be safely in the place where the parent expects him to be. It may be slightly different if the child has no responsibility for siblings and who is coming up to the age of, say, 15 years. It could be a younger child aged 11 or 12 who is also responsible for taking a younger child home from an adjacent primary school. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment. I believe that it is unnecessary and would probably make the clause unworkable. We obviously cannot legislate for what
As the noble Baroness is aware, as the clause stands the head teacher must take effective steps to give 24 hours' written notice to the parent whom he believes has custody of the child at the relevant time. If he has taken those effective steps, he can then assume that notification of detention has been received even if there has been no response from the parent. In those circumstances it occurs to us unlikely that a court would be sympathetic towards any claim of false imprisonment.
Page 22, line 27, at end insert ("and the head teacher must have been satisfied that the pupil's parent or guardian was aware both that the detention was due to take place and of the time of day of the detention at which the pupil would be leaving the school").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page