| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hylton: It is possible that the amendments may be technically defective or may not come in exactly the right place in the Bill. Nevertheless, I support the general thrust of them. We all know, whether in England or in Northern Ireland, that the time when most young people get involved in crime and anti-social behaviour is when they are at risk of suspension from school or have been suspended or totally excluded.
I have personal knowledge of a scheme still functioning in Belfast, called Pathways. Set up as a joint venture between the Education and Library Board and a voluntary organisation, it is providing alternative forms of education for children who are found to be at risk of getting into trouble. It would be helpful if the Bill could incorporate some reference at least to educational input.
Viscount Brookeborough: On the face of it, I am reasonably in favour of these amendments, but, bowing to the greater knowledge of our village schoolmaster, I accept that it would be difficult to put the obligation on to teachers. Can the Minister reassure us that, if children are involved with the courts, the school is always given an opportunity to put forward its point of view.
Almost inevitably it is the children who are difficult at school who are more prone to this kind of difficulty. I have worked with a hospital trust which undertook child psychiatry. There is a problem with children with learning difficulties who are left behind at school. A large proportion of the children—somewhere around 50 per cent—who are acknowledged to have learning difficulties are not catered for in special schools or given assistance from special people because the funding simply is not there. That applies throughout the United Kingdom.
As a result, these children are, first, more prone to homelessness later on; secondly, they are more prone to commit youth crime. Where they are attending a place of education or a child psychiatric unit where experts are helping them, I should like to be assured that, even if it is not specified in the Bill, in every such case the school or the professionals involved will be asked for their opinion.
4 p.m.
Lord Kilclooney: Like the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I too am greatly influenced by the words of wisdom from a very old former teacher. To be serious, one of the major complaints in education from the teaching profession at the moment is the increasing burden of administration in schools: form filling and so forth. Here, yet again, we are going to put a further burden on the teaching profession. That will certainly mean less time for teaching the children.
The second point I should like to make is this. If such a proposal is going to be made, then surely the teaching trade unions would have been approached and we would have had word of their opinion?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The former village school teacher—not the old village school teacher—is absolutely right. I can say that, given that my late father was a village school teacher. What the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, seems to be indicating is that one does not need to be overly prescriptive, a point made the other day by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. One needs to allow a certain amount of discretion and judgment. In very many cases it may well be necessary to contact the school and the school teacher, but it does not need to be made an absolute obligation in the Bill.
The education of the young person is of course important and we want to avoid any conflict between educational interests and the general requirements of the order. It is neither necessary nor suitable to make provision for a person professionally responsible for the child's education to be specifically defined, for the reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney.
The Secretary of State will have the power to designate persons to perform the relevant function in circumstances where it makes sense to do so. In the overwhelming majority of cases, however, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, that one would expect the expertise of social services or the probation board to be the most suitable for this type of work. In exercising their professional judgment, where appropriate, they would want to be in touch with the school teacher or the school.
I accept that the factors set out in Amendment No. 188 are typical of the factors that need to be taken into account. Again, however, one would expect those considerations and others—for instance, the age and maturity of the relevant child—to inform the court's decision on the requirements appropriate to each case. We ought to leave it to the courts and the professionals who prepare the reports to reach sensible judgments.
On amendment No. 189, I repeat, details of the child's education provision are very important and should be reflected in the court report. That is not the only aspect, however. There may be considerations of religion or work which also need to be taken into account. One would not want to introduce a prescriptive ranking of the importance of those various considerations. The Bill already provides that a reparation must, as far as is practicable, avoid
conflict with attendance at school or work or with the offender's religious beliefs. For myself, I am content that report writers and the courts will reflect on all the relevant factors when determining the appropriate requirements.Amendment No. 193 would add to the categories of persons who can be nominated as responsible officers. As the noble Lords, Lord Maginnis and Lord Kilclooney, said, in many circumstances this would be an extremely unwelcome obligation placed on teachers and education professionals.
In particular, let us look at the illustration of a teacher at work, as I once was myself. It would be quite wrong for someone who has responsibility for a child's education to be put in a position where they might be called on to enforce the court order—for instance, if breach proceedings were necessary. That would be unsuitable and, in my view, inconsistent with a teacher's professional ethics.
The purpose of the provision at which Amendment No. 194 is directed is simply to transfer the authority for a reparation order from the court that imposed it to the court in the petty sessional division in which the child lives, if that is different.
On Amendment No. 199, copies of a community responsibility order have to be given immediately to the child subject to the order, the parent or guardian and the supervising responsible officer. I cannot see the purpose of insisting that the teacher of a child must also receive a copy of the order. It is difficult to understand what use they might make of it.
Amendments Nos. 215, 221, 225 and 228 relate to a child still in education. Amendment No. 215 would require the attendance at the conference of an education professional in all cases if the child is still in education. I echo again the point of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. That would mean that the conference could not go on without the teacher being present. The teaching professional could make an invaluable contribution to the conference, but it is too rigid to say that the conference cannot go ahead without the teacher being there. I put in brackets that most teachers of my acquaintance do not teach just one child. What is to happen to all the other children under the teacher's care in a particular class? The amendments are not workable. It is much better to allow a certain amount of informed discretion rather than being too prescriptive.
In some circumstances, it might be in the interests of the child if the school were not informed of the order. For instance, if a child receiving education commits a petty offence on a Saturday, not on a school day, an apology and reparation to the shop owner in a shoplifting case, a restriction on being in town on a Saturday or a requirement to participate in a sporting activity might well be sufficient. In other circumstances, the school ought to be involved. These are further illustrations of an over-prescriptive approach.
The Bill already provides that the co-ordinator may allow the attendance of anyone whose participation would be of value. Under Clause 52—the aims clause—co-ordinators are already required, as we have seen today, to have regard to the welfare of a child being conferenced with a view, in particular, to furthering educational development. Amendment No. 221 would require the conference plan to contain details for provision of the child's education. For the reasons I gave a moment or two ago, that is unduly prescriptive.
Amendment No. 225 would require that, when the director is informed of the extent to which the child has complied with the youth conference plan, he also receives a report on the child's attendance and performance at school. New Article 10D provides that a report must go to the director at the end of the period specified in the youth conference plan, informing him of the extent to which the child has complied with the plan. That information will enable him to decide whether he ought to instigate proceedings in respect of the child.
On the other hand, if a conference plan stipulates that a child attends school or undertakes certain courses—perhaps the particular courses to which the noble Viscount referred—or even that he works to improve his grades in certain subjects, the director must be informed of the extent to which these requirements are being complied with. However, if the conference plan does not make any such requirements, the decision whether to prosecute should not be based on any such report.
Amendment No. 228, which is the last in this quite lengthy grouping, would require a copy of the youth conference order to be given to a professional responsible for the child's education in all cases in which the child is still in receipt of education. Where the plan includes requirements relating to a child's attendance or performance at school, it will be necessary for the school to know that, to ensure that compliance is monitored. However, where the plan does not include any such requirement, I cannot agree that the school should, as a matter of course, be informed about the order.
I have spent a little time on this group because it is important—it deals with various aspects. I return to the theme with which I began—that one does not need to burden teachers and schools unnecessarily, but one should allow the discretion to involve them where appropriate.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page