HL Deb 28 November 2000 vol 619 cc1290-1

Clause 63, 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.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof—

106A Clause 63, page 42. line 35, leave out from beginning to ("of") and insert ("In section 444")

106B Clause 63, page 42. line 36, leave out from ("school)") to ("is") in line 37 and insert—

("(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

"(1A) If in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1) the parent knows that his child is failing to attend regularly at the school and fails without reasonable justification to cause him to do so, he is guilty of an offence.",.

(b) in subsection (8), for "this section" there is substituted "subsection (1)",

(c) after that subsection there is inserted—

"(8A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1A)").

106C Clause 63, page 42, line 41, at end insert—

("(8B) If, on the trial of an offence under subsection (1A), the court finds the defendant not guilty of that offence but is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may find him guilty of that offence").

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 106, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106A to 106C in lieu thereof.

Briefly, these provisions will create a new and additional aggravated offence with a maximum penalty at level 4 and/or three months' imprisonment. The current offence under Section 444 would remain unchanged. However, the new and additional aggravated offence would require proof of parental knowledge of truancy and failure without "reasonable justification" to, cause the child to fail to attend regularly at school". The failure to appear in court to answer the summons in respect of the aggravated offence would allow the issuing of a warrant to secure attendance.

We have debated these matters at considerable length on earlier occasions. What we have put before noble Lords today are, I believe, the fruits of a common agreement and understanding of the very necessary changes that we seek to make.

I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind words of commendation for the approach adopted by the Government and I congratulate him on securing what I believe is now a position of common consent between us.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 106, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 106A to 106C in lieu thereof.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Earl Russell

My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Minister and, through him, his officials for the care that they have put into this matter. Perhaps I may also congratulate parliamentary counsel on the exactitude with which the agreement reached between us has been embodied. I am fully satisfied and I thank all those involved.

On Question, Motion agreed to.