Don Foster MP and EPOCH seek to impose unproven ideology against the wishes of parents

On 26 February, Don Foster MP, in a Commons Standing Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill, moved an amendment which undermines parental responsibility for the upbringing of their children. The MP for Bath and Liberal Democrat spokesman on Education proposed that parents should be forbidden by law to delegate their right to physically discipline their children to an independent school.

Introducing the debate, Mr Foster declared, "I am fundamentally opposed to corporal punishment, in principle and in practice... [It] is a matter of principle: it is a question of fundamental human rights." He was supported by Tony McNulty (Lab, Harrow East) who asserted, "I do not accept that there is a moral dimension to corporal punishment. Child abuse in any form is immoral. Corporal punishment of any sort is child abuse." Further support for the amendment came from Helen Jones (Lab, Warrington North), who referred to "the outdated and barbaric ritual of corporal punishment"

Stereotypes

In presenting their case against corporal discipline in independent schools, contributors to the debate relied on words and images from Tom Brown's Schooldays and Billy Bunter. Liberal use was made of words such as 'thrashing', 'beating' and 'violence'. If Mr Foster and his supporters had taken the time and trouble to make enquiries, they would have discovered that the images conveyed by such terms bear no resemblance to the way that corporal discipline is administered in many of the independent schools which have retained its use.

However, the amendment was moved and a free vote in the House of Commons promised without any reasoned and measured investigation into the nature and incidence of corporal discipline in independent schools. Neither was there any attempt to consult parents who have authorised their children's school to use a physical sanction after careful thought and consideration.

No consultation

If the MPs had only consulted, they would have found many parents with coherent and thought-out principles on the discipline of children. They would have heard from parents who love their children as much as any others. Unfortunately, however, the views of parents did not seem to enter into the minds of Mr Foster and his supporters. No time was even allowed for public debate, as the amendment was due to be debated at the Third Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill in the Commons on Wednesday 11 March - less than two weeks after it had been proposed in Committee.

The Government, however, adjourned the debate before the amendment on corporal discipline had been reached. At the time of going to press, a revised date is yet to be confirmed, but it is expected to be before the Easter recess.

Irony

It is ironic that MPs should be debating the abolition of corporal discipline in independent schools when the ten-year experiment in state schools has failed to the extent that the Government has felt it necessary to issue guidance to schools on the use of "reasonable force" in dealing with unruly pupils. Not even the most committed campaigner against physical correction can claim that discipline standards in state schools have improved since corporal discipline was abolished in 1987. Yet abolitionists are not even prepared to admit that those who support the use of a physical sanction hold a legitimate opinion. Their position is unproven and ideological and lacks any basis in reason.

The combination of emotive language and bizarre anecdotes which marked the Committee debate and so frequently characterises the arguments of opponents of corporal discipline is no substitute for a calm and rational approach to the issue. No one will deny that corporal discipline has sometimes been used carelessly or unwisely, but that does not prove the case for its abolition. Rather, it points to the need to use it properly and responsibly. The fact that some motorists drive carelessly hardly constitutes a case for abolishing cars! Evidence suggests that where there is a good partnership and understanding between parent and school, and where corporal discipline is used consistently, to a moderate extent and with the good of the child at heart, it will invariably prove an effective form of discipline.

EPOCH

In view of the nature of Don Foster's proposal and the tone of the debate, it came as no surprise to learn that EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children) had been involved in drafting the amendment and briefing its key supporters. EPOCH, of course, are avowedly committed to legislating against all corporal discipline of children - even by parents. While the scope of Mr Foster's current amendment does not go beyond independent schools, the arguments employed in the debate could be equally applied to the family home.

The point was not lost on Graham Brady (Con, Altrincham & Sale West). He observed, "The hon Gentleman seems to be arguing that corporal punishment is wrong in all circumstances. Would he support legislation banning parents from using it?" In reply, Don Foster refused to comment beyond saying that he had "strong views about using physical violence against children - or any other human being". But Mr Brady pursued the matter further: "All hon Members who have argued for the new clause...started from the premise that it is an abuse of human rights in all circumstances for a child to experience corporal punishment. There are serious consequences to pursuing the logic of that argument, which is that it is always wrong for parents to administer physical punishment to their children...I find the suggestion disturbing."

Parental choice

Mr Brady supported the use of corporal discipline in independent schools as "an essential extension of parents' rights. If parents choose to place their children in the care of a particular school, there is no logic in prohibiting their right to delegate their parental powers to the school... Parental use of corporal punishment is governed by law and only reasonable force may be used. It would be unreasonable for parents or anyone acting in loco parentis to do anything that the law regards as abuse."

Families for Discipline has been actively opposing Don Foster's amendment and will continue to present the case for lawful parental freedoms and responsibilities to be recognised.

The UK public says...

In 1996, national polls suggested that two-thirds of the general public support the restoration of corporal discipline to state schools:

Mori for the Mail on Sunday (64%), NOP for the Sunday Express (68%), Gallup for the Sunday Telegraph (68%), Audience Selection for The People (67%).

This article was originally published in Families for Discipline newsletter, Issue 6, Spring 1998.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.