Clause 228 (Hansard, 20 July 1972)

§ Mr. Arthur Jones (Northants, South)
I beg to move Amendment No. 1169, in page 161, line 18, leave out 'non-metropolitan county' and insert 'district and'.
I think that it will be convenient to take the following consequential Amendments: Nos. 1170, 1171 and 1172.
The Amendments relate to the powers of councils to make byelaws for good rule and government. When this matter was discussed in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister was sympathetic to the idea that these powers should lie, not within the non-metropolitan counties, but with the district councils. The purpose of the Amendments is to give effect to that.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting these Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that the House will find them acceptable.

§ Mr. Barry Jones (Flint, East)
I beg to move Amendment No. 964, in page 161, line 23, at end insert: 'and for the protection of their employees in the event of their being threatened, abused or assaulted whilst in the exercise of their duty by any person or persons'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)
With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 776, in page 161, line 32, at end insert: (5) A principal council may exercise in relation to those premises used for the purpose of transacting its business the power to make byelaws for good rule and government conferred by subsection (1) of this section.

§ Mr. Jones
The object of the Amendment is to give public employees, particularly teachers, greater protection in the course of their employment from the consequences of assault. As the House knows, I am a member of the National Union of Teachers.
During recent years teachers in some areas have been experiencing difficulty with certain parents who go to their child's school and abuse teachers and generally cause a disturbance. The incidents can be summarised as follows: a parent who comes onto the school premises and beats up a teacher; a parent who charges into the classroom and makes a scene in front of the children; a parent who privately sees a head teacher or teacher and in the course of the complaint shouts at and abuses the teacher; a parent who refuses to leave the school and causes a scene.
I do not wish to create panic, but our society appears to be growing more violent, and our older school children are not averse to dealing their teachers hurtful hacks on the shin and powerful punches on the face. Sometimes they behave in an even more horrific way. In 1960 six pupils assaulted their teachers 1057 and 38 parents and two relatives did likewise. In 1971, 38 pupils assaulted their teachers and 41 parents and four relatives did likewise. Those are only reported incidents. It is fair to say that 5 million children attend comprehensive and other secondary schools, and that there are 300,000 teachers in my union. Parental assault has been steady whilst child assault on teachers, albeit in a time of exploding school population, has arisen slightly.
To back up my case I will give one or two instances. At Bexley heath two boys in class punched the face of a school-mistress; she suffered delayed concussion, and a prosecution ensued. At Bristol a mistress was kicked as she struggled against her younger assailants; she suffered a miscarriage. Recently a teacher in Manchester received £500 after being stabbed by a pupil. A mistress elsewhere had a cut lip after being hit by a metal jug. Teachers face a real problem, and they should receive certain backing.
So much for recalcitrant pupils. But it is aggressive parents who pose the most difficult problems in schools. At a Liverpool school recently a head teacher advised an assistant teacher to administer corporal punishment. Reluctantly the assistant teacher did that. Later the child's angry mother arrived at the school. She, a heavy Scottish woman, boxed the assistant teacher's ears. As a result of the blows he became deaf in one ear.
Currently, the model byelaws for schools, which I am attempting to amend, issued by the Home Office, mention only headmasters and deputy head teachers. Young assistant teachers for various reasons are reluctant to prosecute. When this young man was assaulted there was no Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in existence. According to the Home Office model rules, a head or deputy head can require people to leave the premises. It is hard to prosecute for trespass when a young teacher, according to the model byelaws, has not the authority to order an exit. It is clear that employers should protect their employees to a greater degree than they do at present.
It is a fact that my union as long ago as 1961 asked for a change in the law in this respect. My union was told by the Home Office that a new local government 1058 Bill was needed to change this law which many in the profession felt was unsatisfactory. I feel that the time is ripe for the Government to indicate whether they are prepared to change it.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
May I speak to the other Amendment which has been selected, Amendment No. 776, which originates from the Greater London Council. The Amendment is drawn in slightly different terms from that with which we dealt in Committee. In Committee my right hon. Friend said he thought that our Amendment was drawn too widely because it referred to premises owned by the Greater London Council. It was intended to apply to council premises in which the Council's business was transacted. To meet the Government's point the Amendment now stands in that form.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I have great sympathy with school staffs and with the staff of local authorities who are threatened with abuse or who are assaulted in the exercise of their duties. But these Amendments are unnecessary, and this is not the right place to amend the law in this respect. The existing criminal law already provides protection against threats, abuse and assault and a wide range of penalties for such offences.
There is no good reason why local authority staff, whether they be teachers, or in the town hall, or in local government offices, should have more, or even different, protection from, say, civil servants, individual citizens, or even Members of Parliament. Byelaws would provide meagre protection. Clause 230of the Bill limits the maximum penalty for offences against good rule and government byelaws made under the Bill to £20. The figures given by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) show that £20 would be meagre protection. The criminal law provides for more severe penalties, where appropriate.
The Amendment is not only unnecessary but inappropriate. In both cases the good rule and government byelaws deal with nuisances affecting the community at large and not isolated sections of it such as local authority staff. Therefore, even if the provision were necessary, Clause 228 would not be the right place for it.

§ Mr. Barry Jones
Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to meet the teachers' unions?

§ Mr. Page
Certainly. I meant the associations of staffs as well. If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter with me in that form, I hope that we can make some progress.

§ Mr. Arthur Jones
Has my right hon. Friend dealt with the point about the GLC?

§ Mr. Page
I meant my remarks to be general, particularly in discussing with the GLC whether we can solve the problem without reference to the byelaws.

§ Mr. Barry Jones
In view of what the Minister has said, and the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 1143, in page 161, line 27, leave out from 'if' to end of line 29 and insert: 'provision for that purpose as respects that area is made by, or is or may be made under, any other enactment'. The Amendment concerns byelaws for good rule and government and for the suppression of nuisance, and makes it clear that if Parliament has made provision in respect of any matter a district council should not have power to make another and different provision by means of byelaws in regard to the same subject-matter.