Clause 22 - Penalty notices for parents
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
10:30 am
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
We now come to another important group of amendments. Our amendments Nos. 54, 55
and 56 are grouped with the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 154. They deal with the Bill's changes to the Education Act 1996. Amendment No. 55 is crucial, and Opposition Members feel most strongly about it, as do many of those who represent the teaching profession. The Minister will be aware of that, as will his colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills.
Classroom teachers do not want the power that the Government propose to give ''authorised staff members'' to start issuing penalty notices. I understand that. I have explained my links with the education world and the fact that members of my family have been heavily involved in teaching and education. Almost all the teachers in my constituency to whom I have spoken are aware of the proposals—much has been said about them in the various professional and trade union publications—and they say, ''You have simply got to stop this.''
Most schools have one or two parents from hell, the kind of intimidatory parents who may live in traveller encampments, some of whom might come to the school armed. The teachers feel genuinely under threat. We have seen some tragic cases of teachers being threatened. The teaching unions often speak of the number of violent incidents. Sometimes the teachers are the victim of violence from the children; disruptive teenagers can be extremely threatening and sometimes attack teachers with weapons.
It is even more frightening for those who are sometimes referred to as NQTs—newly qualified teachers. They come straight out of teacher training college to schools in rough inner-city areas and suddenly find parents bursting into the school. If the Government get their way, such parents will burst through the security measures, wielding weapons and demanding, ''Why have you issued a penalty notice?'' As a result, fewer people will volunteer to go into teaching, and an even greater shortage of teachers is the last thing that the Government want.
It is not the Minister's fault, but the Government are under huge pressure because schools throughout the country are laying off staff. The Education Secretary has tried to blame the LEAs for hanging on to what he called the missing millions, but the vast majority of schools—including all the schools in my constituency—say that whatever money the Government claim to have given them has more than been wiped out by the increase in national insurance. The salary bills have increased because of the rise in national insurance, and all the teachers and heads in my constituency are asking what the Government are up to.
The Government may be giving with one hand, but they are taking away more with the other through the national insurance increase and the costs of bureaucracy. It is not surprising that every secondary head in my constituency and a number of primary heads have written to me in extremely strong terms, saying that they are losing teachers. Then, just as that is happening, the Government come along with something that the teaching profession does not want. It all very well saying that head teachers, with the backing of the governing body and the LEA,
should have responsibility for some of those powers, but it will not work for ordinary classroom teachers. I cannot stress too strongly that we must have amendment No. 55. I hope that the Minister will accept it, as he did the previous amendment.
I turn to the wider issue of truancy. Since the Government came to power, there has been a big increase in the absolute number of children playing truant at least once from primary and secondary school. Truancy increased by 17.16 per cent. between 1996–97 and 2001–02—the last year for which figures are available. These are Government figures. There has been an increase of 14.75 per cent. in the rate of pupils playing truant. That is a huge problem. I recognise that the Government are trying to tackle it in the Bill, and we are not critical of that at all. Indeed, the concept of parenting contracts originally appeared in a Conservative consultation document in 1996. This Government took it up in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and now we have this Bill. There is no difference between the two main parties on the principle of what we are trying to achieve.
The concern is not only that truancy is increasing. We believe from discussions with head teachers throughout the country that schools under-report the number of half-days lost through unauthorised absence. We think that there is under-reporting because schools have to declare the figures publicly and they might reflect badly on them. Given the increasing number of children playing truant at least once and the disincentive to report truancy, we conclude that the problems of truancy are getting worse. We hope that some of the measures in the Bill on which we agree with the Government will cause those trends to be reversed. However, the wrong way to tackle the problem would be to put the teaching profession, particularly ordinary classroom teachers, under huge pressures, so I do not believe that the Government have thought this measure through correctly.
Liberal Democrat amendment No. 154 is designed to deal with a Henry VIII-type clause, and we have no problem with it. In amendment No. 54, Conservative Members suggest that we should take out the words ''or a head teacher'' in new section 444B of the Education Act 1996. The provision would then refer to persons who may be authorised by an LEA to give penalty notices. That goes with amendment No. 55, which would take out the reference to other staff members authorised by the head teacher. Most crucial is amendment No. 56, which would take out the part of new section 444B(4) that states that
'' 'authorised staff member' means—
(a) a head teacher of a relevant school in England, or
(b) a member of the staff of a relevant school in England who is authorised by the head teacher''.
We would prefer penalty notices to be given only by constables or LEA officers, because they are distanced from the sharp end of the school. It would be more difficult for aggressive parents to try to get into a police station to threaten a constable, or to go the LEA headquarters, which may be miles away from the
school. It is the teachers—ordinary classroom teachers and, to some extent, head teachers—who are under threat.
The Minister must concede that there is an increase in violence inflicted on or threatened against teachers, including head teachers. All the evidence shows that, and there is huge concern about it in the profession. I sincerely hope that the Government will think again. I cannot put it any more strongly. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say, and I hope that he will reconsider this measure. I rather suspect that, if the Government do not drop it now, they will have to do so in another place, because I cannot believe that it will get through there. This is one of the most crucial aspects of this part of the Bill.