| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Cryer (Hornchurch): In Committee, I expressed concerns about clause 55 as it then was; it is now clause 61. The concerns are that increasing the fines for parents of truanting children and, more particularly, jailing them will be counterproductive.
Since the Committee stage, I have contacted several charities concerned with children. They have written back to me to express their reservations about clause 61. For example, the Child Poverty Action Group said, among other things:
- I can certainly confirm that we would regard this as a retrograde step. Penalties of this sort, levied upon families on low incomes, seem to be based on the assumption that children will somehow be insulated from the effects of fines paid by their parents--or from the consequences of those fines not being paid. This is manifestly not so and we would hope that, given further reflection and discussion, a less punitive approach might prevail.
- We do not think it is helpful to have increased sanctions against parents whose children do not attend school. The reasons why children do not attend school are many and complex and we do not think that increasing the penalties on parents is the most constructive way forward. Indeed we are concerned that this clause, whilst perhaps having a deterrent element, would actually result in more difficulties and problems for families that are already vulnerable and disadvantaged.
That leads me to the question that I raised in Committee. The measure would send parents to jail and put children in care. I have talked to one or two head teachers in my constituency who know children of secondary school age who are regular truants and who have younger brothers and sisters. If the sanction were used by magistrates courts, the parents would be sentenced to three months in prison. The younger children and, for that matter, the older children at secondary school would be taken into care, obviously at a hugely increased cost to the taxpayer. The measure would be counterproductive.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office argued in Committee that the measure would not work that way and that it was mainly a deterrent that would not, in practice, be used by magistrates; but it is not the Minister, me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will be on the bench when cases come up. It may be people who have a particularly vindictive streak. There are magistrates who have vindictive streaks; I have seen them in action. They may choose to use the full sanction of the law and to jail parents for three months at a time.
That is a realistic prospect. In the light of the comments by the charities that I have mentioned and by other charities, if we pass the legislation, we will go against some of the key charities that have the interests of children at heart and that have campaigned for children's rights for a long time. They are clearly dead against the clause going through. There is much to be said for their arguments.
10.45 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) and by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer). Although I did not serve on the Committee, I should like briefly to give a few reasons why I think that the Government's intention to go down this road is misconceived.
The Government could say--I have read the Minister's comments in Committee--that the provision will give magistrates another power that they, in their wisdom, will use only when necessary, and that it will simply expand
the range of options available to them. Although that statement is true, it presumes that it is acceptable or reasonable to imprison parents for three months for failure to secure regular attendance.In recent debates, the Government have talked about the possibility of imprisoning offenders for one day, for a weekend or for other very short periods. If we really think that we are not getting through to parents on the issue, that length of imprisonment would seem to be much more appropriate as an ultimate sanction. I do not think that it is reasonable to propose a three-month removal of the type of parent who cannot manage to deliver their children to school.
The proposed response is entirely inappropriate and is not supported by any evidence that it is likely to produce a positive outcome. It is also absolutely unhelpful in trying to address the underlying issues.
Earlier in the debate, I cited the example of a relevant constituency case which, entirely coincidentally, occurred only last weekend. On Saturday, a single-parent constituent came to my front door to ask for help on finances, as her benefit cheque had not arrived. In the process of helping her to sort out the matter, I went to her home, where I discovered five children, all of whom are of school age, but one of whom was not going to school. I shall deal with that matter in the usual way. However, the point is that the girl had left in her first year of secondary school because of bullying, and no other suitable school had yet been found that would accept her.
In all my years as a Member of Parliament, my experience has been that a child who does not attend school usually fails to do so because of a problem between that child and the school, and that such problems are usually better resolved by educational welfare officers finding a better school or deciding that it is not appropriate for such children to be in a formal school setting.
Frequently, one of the reasons why parents do not ensure that their children go to school is that they are unhappy with the school. We will not solve that problem by sending those parents to prison. Parents often say to me, "I am sorry, but I am not sending my child to that school. I am not comfortable about that being a satisfactory school. The educational standards are not satisfactory; it has poor discipline; it is too far away. None of the other local children go to that school. There are no community links."
Parents' reasons for not wanting to send their children to a particular school are many and varied. Their concerns should be dealt with in various ways, but not by saying that they should go to prison. Such a response will not get the child into school any better than other actions would.
Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon): The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking more about the Education Act 1996 than the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. We are talking about cases in which children who should be at school commit yet another offence. Very often, it is a matter of "yet another" offence, as the children will already be subject to orders under the 1996 Act. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be addressing that issue.
Mr. Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was speaking. If he was, he would
have heard her say that the issue would have been dealt with more appropriately in a debate on education legislation. The issue is not about offences committed by children at all, but simply about how we respond, in criminal justice legislation, to cases in which parents do not send their children to school. Our proposal--supported, as the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) said, widely outside the House--is to delete the proposed clause which deals with a person being guilty of an offence if they fail to secure regular attendance of their children or the young person for whom they are responsible. The clause states that the penalty should be increased to a maximum of three months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding level 4. The Bill proposes to increase both the imprisonment and the fine.I ask the Government to think seriously about the likelihood and appropriateness of this measure ever being used and to consult more widely about whether this is not absolutely the wrong road to go down. I have never had a single experience where the threat or the actuality of the imprisonment of a parent for a non-attending school child has produced any better result.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): This feels like one of those clauses that goes through late at night without sufficient debate and which, in retrospect, is seen to be a clear mistake.
I represent a constituency in the east end of London where truancy is a serious problem. Hackney probably has higher truancy than many other areas. I am aware that truancy is serious, as being a truant is one step along the road to being involved in criminal activity. I applaud the Minister's intention to crack down on truancy, and his intention to try to reinforce positive, meaningful and responsible parenthood among parents of all ages. We must be aware of issues relating to responsible parenting and to a lack of parenting skills.
As to the clause, and whether it will achieve the results that Ministers want, I am concerned. The clause applies to parents but, with many truanting children, it is not "parents"--there is a single mother. I cannot see how it can be in the interests of the family unit to send a mother to prison for three months as, invariably, it will not just be one child but others too who will be forced into care as a consequence.
I recently visited Holloway. This country already imprisons far too many women for such offences. We imprison more women as a percentage of the population than any other country in Europe for just this type of offence. A clause in a Bill that must lead inevitably--if it is to be meaningful--to more women going to prison cannot go by unremarked. I applaud the Minister's intentions and motivation, but I do not believe that the clause has been sufficiently thought through.
I cannot believe that it will be in the interests of the truants themselves that their parents run the risk of serving time in prison. Those types of truanting children are very often beyond the control of their parents in any case. I wonder how effective the new clause will be in practice.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |