HC Deb 14 November 2000 vol 356 cc909-13

Lords amendment: No. 106, in page 43, line 2, at end insert—

("() This section shall apply only in cases where the failure to attend school is with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.")
Mr. Boateng

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu thereof.

Mr. Boateng

I commend amendment No. 106 to the House. Concerns have been expressed that a stiffer penalty for failure to secure regular attendance at school would be unduly harsh in certain circumstances. Having listened to all the arguments, we propose to create a new and additional aggravated offence for truancy with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine and/or three months' imprisonment. That would leave unchanged the current offence under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, but the new and additional offence would require parental knowledge and a failure to act without reasonable justification. We had a good debate in Committee and there was a good debate in the House of Lords. The points that were made by the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) have been taken on board in our deliberations and in our amendment.

10.30 pm

Our objective has always been to get parents to court, so that the seriousness of the offence can be brought to their attention—that is our purpose; it is not the imprisonment of parents. The failure to appear in court to answer a summons for that aggravated offence would allow the issuing of a warrant to secure attendance. That is enormously important. Anyone with any experience in the matter knows the importance of bringing home to parents in those circumstances the seriousness of their children not attending school, but the higher penalty would be linked only to the most serious cases where parents failed to take their responsibilities seriously. We do all we can to help parents to educate their children, but ultimately we need an effective legal sanction for parents who, despite extensive help, still do not fulfil their duty. At the moment—we have to face the fact—the sanction is simply not working. Eighty per cent, of parents prosecuted for school attendance offences fail to turn up at court. They are mostly fined in their absence, and the fines are sometimes as low as £1. That cannot be right. We must send a different message. I commend the measure because it does that. It builds on good practice in Newham, with police, education welfare officers and social workers all working together. It gives the courts, the police and education welfare the power that they need to protect and to secure the rights and interests of children in a good education. I commend the amendment.

Mr. Hawkins

As the Minister says, we had a good debate in Committee, but he did not refer to the equally important debate in another place, where there were extremely good speeches not only by Baroness Blatch but by Earl Russell, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats. One phrase came to mind. When Earl Russell criticised what the Government were saying, he used words that many of us will understand were accurate: This clause altogether over-rates the power that some parents have over teenage children. Nevertheless, we recognise the spirit of what the Government are seeking to do.

There was an important debate in Committee and in another place on the role of responsible officers and parents in relation to children who repeatedly play truant. That problem plagues many schools in many parts of the country. There will be a small group of persistent truants whose parents, as the Minister says, simply do not care to encourage their children to attend school, so we recognise that the Government are trying to deal with an important issue.

The Minister did not refer to what Baroness Blatch said. She wanted to know the extent to which the schemes to reduce truancy in schools that have been put in place already at very great cost have been successful. Right across the country local authority schools have received money to help them produce strategies for reducing the number of young people who are truanting from school.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 31 October 2000; Vol. 618, c. 927–9.] She tabled questions for written answer about the result of the Government's policies. To all her questions, Baroness Blackstone's answer was that the Department did not know and that it would be disproportionately costly to find out the information. That is not an acceptable answer. We are talking about the use of taxpayers' money. If strategies are being developed, surely both Houses need to be given the proper answers. I hope that in due course there will be reconsideration of the importance of this House knowing chapter and verse about all that.

If we are to discuss the issues of truancy seriously, we need to know how existing systems are working. It is not acceptable for the Government to say that it is disproportionately costly to find out the information. If Parliament does not get the information, who on earth is going to get it? I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that point, which we think is important. We also welcome the contribution that the Liberal Democrats have made on the issue, both in Committee and in another place.

Jackie Ballard

As my noble Friend Earl Russell—whom the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) so much admires—said in a debate in the other place, he would have preferred to delete clause 69 entirely. As the Minister said, I tried to achieve the same objective in Committee. However, as my noble Friend was too late to attempt to delete the clause, he moved an amendment providing that it would affect only a parent whose child failed to attend school with the knowledge and consent of the parent or other adult responsible for securing the child's attendance at school.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1550.] The other place accepted the amendment, which seems to have the same effect as the Government's amendments in this group. In the other place, however, it was widely accepted that, although a parent can register a child for school and even see the child through the school gates, the child can subsequently leave, and it is very difficult for the parent to know about or to control that truancy, which obviously occurred without parental knowledge or complicity. It was also accepted that it is important to distinguish between parents who could not care less where their children are and parents who make every effort possible to ensure school attendance.

I still maintain that a £2,500 fine or three months' imprisonment is not the right way to deal either with parents who are culpable and plain inadequate or with parents who are simply not coping. I suspect that, even with the threat of such penalties, a large percentage of those parents will not turn up in court. They probably believe that the courts would not imprison them—especially if they have other, younger children—and that the courts would realise that they could not pay a £2,5000 fine.

I suspect that the?1 fines that the Minister mentioned were imposed because courts realised that people could not pay more. A?1 fine may sound ridiculous, but the courts may have realised that the parents did not have the wherewithal to pay a larger one. I think that ever more help and support for parents, not ever heavier penalties, are the answer to truancy. We have to help ensure that parents are able to bring up their children responsibly.

The Lords were constructive in their opposition to clause 69, and I am pleased that the Government have responded constructively to their improvement of the Bill. However, although I believe that the clause is improved, it would have been better if it had not been included in the Bill at all.

Mr. Boateng

I referred to the debate in the other place, and I linked it with the very good debate that we had in Committee in which the hon. Lady played an important part. We are still not at one with her on the issue, but I suspect that we never shall be. Although we desire the same objective, we approach the issue from a different perspective.

I commend the work of Earl Russell and of my noble Friend Lord Bassam on the issue. The deliberations of the other place have refined and developed the approach to the issue that we share with Earl Russell. That approach enables us to tackle the problem in a manner that sends a clear message.

I really do feel that we cannot accept fine levels in which the sum of £1 features. The notion that a £1 fine could ever be appropriate is absolutely absurd. We are not prepared to accept that such fines could ever be appropriate.

Information on the fines levied is not available centrally and could not be obtained except at disproportionate cost. However, we know from research that the fines levied are lamentably low.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) referred to the evidence of success in tackling truancy. We have stemmed the flow in truancy that took place in the 1990s by determined action on the part of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary, whose Departments have jointly taken initiatives in this area. I would commend to the hon. Gentleman and to Baroness Blatch a visit to one of the schemes; the one at Newham is particularly helpful. They would gather from such a visit that it is possible, through concerted effort by social services, education, welfare and police, to make a difference. Our amendments give them and the courts the power to tackle this problem, and I commend them unreservedly to the House.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 106 agreed to.

Mr. Simon Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have come to the end of the substantive debate and we will now go through the formalities to deal with the remaining amendments on the Order Paper. Given Mr. Speaker's interest in trying to modernise our procedures and the struggle that the occupants of the Chair and Members have had throughout the day in trying to following the procedure, could I ask whether there is a way in which all the non-contentious business that comes back here can be processed at a logical time or without having to go through this House? A lot of material comes back to us, but only a certain amount causes any contention at all. Could that matter be referred to whichever parts of the system are looking at modernising our procedures so that those here—let alone those outside—can understand what is going on?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

The hon. Gentleman—who has long experience of this House—ought to know that it is not necessary to raise that matter on a point of order at this point of the proceedings when it is perfectly open to him to write to the Procedure Committee to ask that it consider these matters. From the Chair, I can only proceed in line with what is laid down.

Lords amendments Nos. 107 to 120 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 121 to 124 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 125 to 129 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 130 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 131 to 134 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 135 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 136 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 137 and 138 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 139 to 244 agreed to.

Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 245 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 245, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 246 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 247 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 247, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 248 disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 249 to 329 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That was not too bad, was it, Mr. Hughes?

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 14, 15, 25, 39, 41 to 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 121 to 124, 135, 137, 138 and 246 to 248: Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Mike Hall, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Mr. Peter Luff and Angela Smith; Mr. Paul Boateng to be the Chairman of the Committee; three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.