| Anti-social Behaviour Bill
|
|
Mrs. Brooke: I join the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in saying that amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are vital. I hope that he will press them to a vote. Amendment No. 154 picks up on the generality of the measure and asks for it to be clarified—if possible, in the Bill. So much is uncertain, and this is a difficult issue. All professionals will want reassurance about what exactly the legislation means. As the Minister is probably aware, the issue of penalty notices leads to some tussling among Liberal Democrats, because we are not necessarily keen on extending penalty fines. However, truancy involves a wide range of behaviour, including unauthorised absences when we know that the children are out shopping with a parent or on their own in shopping areas. There are many local initiatives to try to tackle that. Ultimately, LEAs have a severe problem: it is costly to take the court action that is necessary in some cases, and it can drag on if parents do not turn up to hearings. LEAS therefore need measures in their back pocket to tackle the issue. Although I am concerned about fines impinging on families and increasing their poverty, I accept that they have to be available at the end of the line. However, I am totally opposed to their being imposed by teachers or head teachers. That is consistent with what I said earlier, in that I thought that they should be separate from the school. We have had amendments inserting references to head teachers; now the Conservative amendments are removing them from the equation. I agree absolutely that they should—it is vital that the matter should be kept separate from the school. The problem is so complex that, although fines are a blunt instrument, I accept that they are necessary. We are considering such a wide range of issues—from those involving troubled and dysfunctional families to situations in which people just do not care—that it is not right for teachers or head teachers to be involved at all. In addition, there are increasingly instances of violence between parents and head teachers. We do not wish to provoke any more direct conflict, and the measure encourages confrontation, making life more difficult for everybody. We have recently seen reports in the press of a mother going to prison. Many of us thought that that was terrible—[Hon. Members: ''It worked.''] We have to accept that it had a deterrent effect. I am trying to demonstrate the sincerity of my support for the Column Number: 111 amendment. However much one recoils from the notion of sending a mother to prison for her children's truancy, fines are not so different and they are important. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge my saying that some of us were wrong about that case, and that in that spirit he will accept my comments on the important amendments, Nos. 54 and 55.Mr. Randall: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, I have concerns about the inclusion of authorised staff members in this part of the Bill. My hon. Friend quoted the example of inner cities. Sadly, there are problems all over the country, and it is not just in cases of social deprivation that violence is perpetrated on teachers and head teachers or—while I am on the subject—shop workers. Violence against people in authority and in other positions is on the increase. I remember that some years ago, during an Adjournment debate just before a recess, the hon. Member for Gedling mentioned that one of the problems in today's society is a lack of respect. It was a very good speech; I have always remembered it. We know that that is a commonly held view because many of our constituents constantly tell us that there seems to be a lack of respect in today's world. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, I have many teachers in my family. I married one, so I am not going to do down the teaching profession—that would not be good policy. It is sometimes said that, over the years, one or two members of the teaching profession have not brought it the respect that it should have. However, that is only a small minority. To legislate in this way may lend the teaching profession a little respect. Over the years, I have come across many parents who are think that they can dictate what should be done, that their son or daughter is paramount and that the teaching staff do not know what they are talking about. It may help if they know that teachers have the power to impose these measures, but I have a feeling that, in today's world, that may result in much more pressure on the staff and on the school generally, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said. Such problems regularly occur in one school in my constituency, which has been trying to sort them out. When new head teachers have arrived, some of the local families—I might say clans—have almost inspected them and tried to stare them out, which must be very frightening. Happily, things have improved for various reasons and the situation is now under control. The Minister for School Standards visited the school recently. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole was right: truancy covers a wide spectrum of society. Some people take unauthorised absence by taking their children out of school for holidays. The head teacher of the school to which I referred said that some of the families were slightly dysfunctional and that the kids might get more educational benefit out of being taken away for three or four days than they would if they were in school. That could be authorised: the Column Number: 112 head teacher has the power to do that. However, many people take their kids out of school purely because going on holiday is a little cheaper in term time.I understand the budgetary requirements of a family: I have three children and, as we know, hon. Members' holidays are taken in the school holidays. The prices necessarily go up in that period, and I understand the constraints, but taking children out of school does not give them a proper message about showing respect for the rules as they grow up. We cannot legislate for that, but it must be instilled in children because it could be said that the current generation of parents missed out on it, and that is why we have had some of the problems. If I had not heard many members of the teaching profession say that they do not want the provision, I would have been neutral on the subject, because some teachers might require these powers. However, the Government should seriously consider that view, given that most hon. Members have had representations to that effect, unless we are to add to teachers' burdens and make recruitment and retention even more problematic—and there are problems with recruitment and retention in London and throughout the country. In trying to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour, we might be making it more difficult to tackle. Liz Blackman: I have no problem with penalty notices being served on parents. It is part of the range of policies in the Bill, which uses a staged approach that is absolutely right. On Second Reading, some Opposition Members opposed this provision because they felt that it would break down the trust between the head teacher, the teachers and the parents, and we have also discussed trust this morning. I have no truck with that argument. If schools can demonstrate that parents are flouting a series of supportive measures intended to get the child back into school, the trust has already gone.
11 amHowever, I have some concerns about bureaucracy because the head or a senior member of staff may be tied up pursuing the fixed penalty notice through its course. Heads and teachers are busy people who already have a heavy administrative work load. I seek some reassurance from the Minister on that and on intimidation, which is another concern that has been expressed this morning. The Opposition have used the idea that the head teacher would authorise NQTs to issue penalty notices as a way of completely demonising and exaggerating the provisions. That is to be deplored, as there is no way that that would happen. We need clarification. Matthew Green: My point follows from the contribution of the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman). I am particularly concerned about the catch-all nature of the term ''authorised staff member''. I share all the sentiments expressed by Opposition Members about the fact that teachers should not issue fixed penalty notices. If the Government insist on pushing the measure through, they should consider its current catch-all nature. The clause states that an authorised staff member is Column Number: 113
We have already been accused of trying to scaremonger about NQTs, but members of staff include school secretaries and caretakers. There are clearly groups of people whom the Government do not intend to hand out fixed penalty notices. Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden): To steal an idea from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), does not the hon. Gentleman consider that the best people to issue notices would be school dinner ladies? They would have no fear of issuing them and they would do so appropriately. Many parents would not wish to mix it with the dinner ladies. Matthew Green: The hon. Lady faces the problem that most school dinner ladies now work for companies that are contracted to do the job for the school, so not all of them are regarded as staff members. We are getting even more ideas from Labour Members now. Will they stop at truancy? Will riding a bike the wrong way down the school drive or smoking behind the bike sheds incur a fixed penalty notice? The clause states that regulations may make
The money is payable to the LEA, and the school can be authorised by a member of the LEA. This may be the Government's way of filling the black hole in education funding. I realise that I am probably stretching the point. I was not going to make that point—I was pushed into it. There is also a point of principle. The police are allowed to keep money from speeding notices only because it is used purely to cut speeding and improve road safety. Nothing in the Bill that says that the money from penalty notices will be used purely to reduce truancy. No amendment on that has been tabled, but the Government could examine the principle; otherwise, there will be potential conflicts of interest. To return to the main point, if the Government insist on pushing through the measure, they should clarify who is an authorised member of staff. At the moment, the definition is wide ranging. The Government clearly do not plan for a newly qualified teacher to be handed the authorisation to slap penalty notices on truants on their first day at school.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 May 2003 |
