| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Boateng: We have had a good and extensive debate about a very serious issue. All right hon. and hon. Members will be concerned to get this measure right and to send a clear and unequivocal message from the Chamber.
We should first understand where the Government are coming from in introducing the clause, and why we oppose amendment No. 6. I well understand where the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) is coming from. She has been very frank and upfront from the outset about her opposition to this measure, and she makes her case seriously. She is right to say that we must avoid the tendency to caricature one another's responses on issues such as this. I certainly have never caricatured her response as in any way being on the side of the truant, and I see that she is good enough to affirm that. Similarly, I would be grateful if she would not caricature our coming forward with this proposal, at this time, in the context of this piece of legislation, as being an attempt somehow to avoid serious scrutiny by educationists. The reverse is the case.
This measure was first referred to in our consultation document "Tackling Truancy Together", which was announced by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment last September/October. In response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), there was an opportunity for organisations to respond. The organisations that responded were largely educational, although magistrates responded too, and were largely in favour of the proposal. I will write to my hon. Friend with a detailed list of the organisations that responded and outline what they said.
The measure has been carefully thought through, and has been the subject of consultation. It is in no sense out of place within criminal justice legislation, because we have to be clear what we are talking about here. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, many such young people are at risk not only of losing their education, but of offending.
There is a direct link between the subject matter of the Bill and this clause. In government, we have shown--more than any of our predecessors--that we are trying to develop and establish a holistic approach to the matter. That has led us to fund generously organisations such as Homestart, but we realise that the issue cannot be left to teachers alone. It requires input from education welfare officers, from social workers and, indeed, from the police.
As I listened to my hon. Friend, I recalled a visit to east London when I discussed with police and social workers in Newham the joint patrols carried out by the police and education welfare and social services officers on the streets of the area. That is precisely the sort of joined-up criminal justice, education, welfare and care approach to truancy that we want to promote.
The provision should not be seen as one response alone--as a tunnel vision approach. It should be seen as one of the building blocks that we need to set up in order to provide an effective response to the problem of truancy. It stands alongside parenting classes and parenting orders. Voices were raised against parenting orders, but, when we piloted them, they were found to be extremely successful. They brought parents to court who otherwise would have continued to avoid their responsibilities; the orders obliged them to confront the consequences of their neglect. Those parents were directed towards help and support to ensure that they addressed the needs of their children and to overcome their own deficits as parents.
What does the clause do? Yes, it raises the fine above its current level, where it is the same as that for non-payment of a television licence--that is equated with not ensuring that a child attends school. It does not seem unreasonable to say that treating in the same way the non-payment of television licences and the failure to ensure school attendance does not reflect the seriousness of that neglect of a child. By raising the fine level, we send out a message about the seriousness of the offence.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), of course, magistrates will continue to have to take into account the financial situation of the parent when setting the fine. There is no question that someone in receipt of benefits would be required to pay the maximum fine, but it is right that the level should be raised to demonstrate the seriousness with which we take the offence. It is more serious than not paying a television licence.
The question of intention was raised: what do we plan to get out of this provision for the child? We believe that we must be able to compel the parents of truants to attend court. By making the offence punishable by imprisonment, we are ensuring that parents are required to attend court or risk arrest. Without that provision, we shall not have the power to compel them to do so--backed up by a power of arrest. That is why the offence has to be made custodial. The proposal was introduced not out of a desire to lock up large numbers of parents, but out of a desire to require parents to attend court when their children do not attend school. The Government believe that that is eminently reasonable.
Mr. McDonnell: The point has been made in the debate that the power might be used infrequently. What assessment have the Government made of the number of parents who would be imprisoned as a result of the introduction of the power?
11.15 pm
Mr. Boateng: I shall come to that point. The power will be available to the courts and we do not expect it to be used widely or often. However, it will be on the statute book to be used in the circumstances that justify it. My hon. Friend might ask me what those circumstances are; I do not expect its use to be justified, except in the most extreme cases, against a single parent with other children who might end up in care. However, when two parents have continually and habitually neglected the interests of the child, have failed to address their responsibilities and have failed to attend court, it is not unreasonable to say that parents have responsibilities as well as rights. Those responsibilities cannot be swept aside just because they are inconvenient.
Mr. McDonnell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Boateng: No, I shall not give way again. My hon. Friend has made his point; he does not need to labour it.
With the rights of a parents core responsibilities. This clause is designed to act as a wake-up call for parents who persistently refuse to accept their responsibilities.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will understand the position as well as I do, so does he accept the point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington)?
When families rely entirely on state benefits, a court is more likely to be driven to the imprisonment conclusion, because a fine would not be a sanction on the parents. Therefore, the power in the clause is much more likely to be used to the disadvantage of the most disadvantaged rather than for the punishment of those who have the resources and the ability to respond.
Mr. Boateng: If that were the case, our sentencing process on fines would be nonsense. The hon. Gentleman might think that it is, but we do not. When an offence is sufficiently serious to warrant imprisonment, we believe that it is right that there should be an alternative. In this case, the alternative to imprisonment is a community penalty. I expect the fine to be levelled at a rate that is commensurate with an individual's ability to pay.
Mr. McDonnell: On every provision, including the parental orders, at least an estimate was given of the numbers who would come before the court as a result of it. Can my right hon. Friend tell us the estimate of the numbers who will come to court, the numbers who will be imprisoned and the number of children who will go into care as a result of this clause?
Mr. Boateng: I have answered that point and I do not intend to cover the same ground again.
The measure was introduced after consultation that has produced, in many instances, a favourable response. It is a reasoned and proportionate response to a real and pressing problem. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment should the hon. Member for Taunton decide to put it to a vote.
Jackie Ballard: I am pleased that the amendment has produced a good and useful debate and I am grateful to Labour Members who spoke to it. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was the notable exception, but I wish that many more of them had made similar points in Committee. We might then have been successful in deleting the clause at that stage.
Many hon. Members have referred to their own experiences of dealing with families with difficulties and of truanting children. Just for the record, I have also had similar experiences in the past as a social worker, teacher and school governor. I have had similar experiences to those of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), but I have come to a different conclusion. The hon. Member for Hornchurch made a good point about the impact on children in families that already have difficulties in coping of increased fines and potential imprisonment: in punishing the parent, it is inevitable that the child is also punished.
I tabled the amendment to allow for debate and I know that the Minister has heard the concerns expressed, especially by Labour Back Benchers. Even the Labour Back Bencher who spoke against the amendment seemed to hope that the ultimate sanction of imprisonment would never be used. I hope that the Minister and the Government will have second thoughts on clause 61 in the other place. I shall also be interested to see the responses to the consultation document, especially from education welfare officers, social workers, teachers and others involved professionally with truanting. The Minister said that a number of those who responded
supported the clause, but he did not tell us whether a majority had done so or how they broke down into groups. That information would be interesting and I hope that the Government will consult further with those who may have missed the initial consultation document.The question is whether the increased penalty will reduce truanting--an aim that all of us wish to achieve--or help children and their families. In the hope that the Government will have a change of mind before the Bill reaches the other place, I shall withdraw the amendment, but we will--if necessary--pursue it in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.--[Mr. Boateng]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |