Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2003.

Standing Committee G

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Before I call the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to move the next amendment, I draw the Committee's attention to the front page of the amendment paper and to the programming resolution, which has been printed again. It will not, however, apply to this sitting. I also draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that new clause 2, which we are likely to reach today, is on the back page of the amendment paper. Hon. Members may be looking for it.Clause 18 Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy

Clause 18 - Parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in

clause 18, page 16, line 1, after 'body', insert 'or head teacher'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 44, in

clause 18, page 16, line 3, at end insert

'or any statement which the local education authority, governing body or head teacher believe, in their entire discretion, is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract'.

Amendment No. 45, in

clause 18, page 16, line 5, at end insert

'or any other requirements which may be thought appropriate'.

Amendment No. 46, in

clause 18, page 16, line 11, at end insert 'head teacher,'.

Amendment No. 206, in

clause 18, page 16, line 12, leave out 'local education authority or'.

Amendment No. 207, in

clause 18, page 16, line 13, leave out subsection (8).

Amendment No. 47, in

clause 18, page 16, line 13, after 'obligations', insert

'on the part of the head teacher, local education authority or governing body'.

Amendment No. 48, in

clause 18, page 16, line 15, leave out 'must' and insert 'should'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are delighted to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien, on a bright and sunny morning. Your fellow Chairman, Mr. Cran, kept us in order in the afternoon sitting earlier in the week, as I am sure you will know.

This is an important group of amendments. I make it clear at the outset that amendments Nos. 47 and 207 are alternatives to each other. It might help the Minister when he responds to know that they are alternative ways of approaching the issue. We believe that the Government have not got the clause right. As

for which one the Government should adopt at a later stage as a Government amendment, on Report or in another place, we have no strong preference.

We have now reached some of the issues to which I referred on Tuesday: I jumped the gun and got a little ahead of myself when I talked about head teachers at a previous sitting. The amendments are related and are not merely probing. They deal with issues that are significant for the teaching profession. Inevitably, many of the amendments that relate to parenting contracts are interlinked. I hope, Mr. O'Brien, that you will understand if some of the things that I and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee say are linked to other groups of amendments. I am sure that we can rely on you to be appropriately lenient and not rule us out of order if we stray a little on to overlapping groups of amendments.

Amendment No. 43 would insert the words ''or head teacher'' into subsection (4)(b). It is important that head teachers should have the opportunity to submit statements that they agree to provide support to help parents comply with a parenting contract.

Amendment No. 44 has perhaps even greater substance. We seek to add at the end of paragraph (b):

''or any statement which the local education authority, governing body or head teacher believe, in their entire discretion, is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract.''

This is another genuine attempt to improve the Bill by providing more flexibility, so that the LEA, the governing body, or the head teacher can include something sensible and helpful as part of their side of a parenting contract. When dealing with disruptive children who have been involved in antisocial behaviour, it is important to involve the LEA, the governing body and the head teacher—the people closest to the issue. As I know from my constituency work, it often happens that several children in one family are all behaving anti-socially. One parent, or two parents must sign up to an agreement with a school that relates to a series of children. We believe that those who know the family and the child best should not be restricted by the Bill and should be able to put whatever they like in the statement.

Amendment No. 45 makes a similar point. It seeks to add at the end of subsection (5):

''or any other requirements which may be thought appropriate.''

At present subsection (5) reads:

''The requirements mentioned . . . may include (in particular) a requirement to attend counselling or guidance sessions.''

Those are not restrictive words but we felt that it might be helpful to make it absolutely clear that the requirements may include any other requirements that may be thought appropriate.

Amendment No. 46 returns to the point about head teachers. Subsection (7) reads:

''A parenting contract must be signed by the parent and signed on behalf of the local education authority or governing body.''

Once again we think that it is crucial to insert the words ''head teacher''. I have had many discussions with head teachers in my constituency. All members of the Committee will have had discussions with the teaching profession about these controversial issues. It

is undoubtedly head teachers to whom these new powers should be given. There is no question but that it would be helpful for the head teacher—the person at the sharp end who knows the children best—to have the power to sign the contract, not merely the governing body.

Amendments Nos. 47 and 207 are the two alternatives that I mentioned earlier. One approach is simply to delete subsection (8), which reads:

''A parenting contract does not create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises in contract or in tort.''

The second approach is to keep subsection (8) but to add at the end:

''on the part of the head teacher, local education authority or governing body.''

Parents should understand that firm, legal obligations are placed on them. We understand what the Government are seeking to do. They want to ensure that aggressive parents cannot sue, in contract or in tort, the LEA, the governing body or the head teacher. That is a laudable objective. The last thing that we want is a further expansion of the compensation culture.

I am not challenging the basis of what the Government are trying to do. I see the Minister nod to indicate that he understands my approach. Our view is that it will be more helpful to have parents clearly understand that they have firm obligations in law and that, if necessary, the courts might become involved in ensuring that those obligations bite firmly on parents. We do not want parents to be able to sue the LEA, the head teacher or the governing body.

All these matters run together. I turn to our amendment No. 48, which seeks to change ''must'' to ''should'' in subsection (9). At the moment, the Bill says:

''Local education authorities and governing bodies of relevant schools must, in carrying out their functions in relation to parenting contracts, have regard to any guidance which is issued by the appropriate person from time to time for that purpose''.

We suggest changing ''must'' to ''should'', because I hear from just about every head teacher and teacher, and certainly every governing body of the schools in my constituency, that they are fed up to the back teeth with legislation and guidance from the Department for Education and Skills. There are pages and pages of bureaucracy, for which I do not blame the Minister because it is not his Department. All the legislation, circulars and material from the DFES to teachers, head teachers and governing bodies is dictatorial. The amendment simply changes the terminology slightly but it would send a helpful signal in terms of relations between the Government and schools if the provision said not ''must'' but ''should''.

Obviously, the Minister will have talked to his colleagues in the DFES, as my hon. Friends and I have talked to our colleagues in the shadow DFES team. In the sensitive area of the relationship between schools, head teachers, teachers, governing bodies and LEAs with disruptive families, we do not want to be too dictatorial. We understand that the Government want

in legislation to encourage head teachers and governing bodies to look at guidance but changing ''must'' to ''should'' would be helpful.

You, Mr. O'Brien, and I hope all members of the Committee will see that we are talking about important matters. The views that I am putting forward are held not merely by Conservative Members. They are shared by many head teachers and teachers to whom I have spoken in my constituency. We will return to the concerns of head teachers about the way the legislation will operate on subsequent amendments. We will come to the concerns of the teaching unions, which are unhappy about being asked to be on the deciding end of some of the penalty clauses. I cannot stress our concerns too strongly.

Beyond my constituency, these concerns are shared widely across Surrey and other counties. I have talked to colleagues such as the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and the shadow schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). They are hearing the same concerns about the proposals from teachers throughout the country.

I have had a personal interest in education not only throughout my 11 years in the House; I spent some time teaching before I qualified at the Bar. My mother was a deputy headmistress. My wife used to be vice-chairman of education on a county council, with a particular interest in pupil referral units and disruptive children. I have a great personal commitment to the issue and I want the legislation to be right.

The Minister understands that we are not trying to undermine the Bill. We believe that the changes we propose in this group of amendments and on subsequent clauses will improve the legislation. If it is to work, it needs to be right at the beginning. I care passionately about that and I hope the Minister will take seriously what we say.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am coming from a slightly different direction but I agree with the aims of the clause. It is important to place that on the record. We have a responsibility to make the whole package work. I took a step back and thought, ''We have home school agreements. What's the difference?'' Of course there is a difference, because we are tackling the challenging behaviour that results in exclusions. Truancy may be part of that or it may be separate. These are difficult issues to crack and a multi-agency approach is required.

The parenting contracts are part of a process and therefore consistency is needed all the way through. Having the head teacher sign the contract might sound convincing on the face of it. However, that could lead to a parenting order, in relation to which it is important to have the LEA doing the enforcing and the head teachers and the school doing the supporting. Therefore, I suspect that it is rather important to keep the separation at this stage, although I shall be interested to hear the Minister's words.

Having said that, I am not sure that it is logical for the clause to mention the governing body if the head teacher is not mentioned. There is no amendment on

that matter but I make that point to the Minister. The problem is complex and involves dealing with children whom one would wish to give the greatest possible support. The school must have perfect freedom to be the supportive people and not the enforcers in the process. The amendment is unnecessary and does not add much. However, it is important to debate what exactly the parenting contract is all about, which sets the scene for this morning's discussion. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the amendment.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Is not the whole point of the clause and the amendment, whether or not it is right, to allow the school to reassert its authority? In that sense, the provisions are about enforcement. The hon. Lady is right that most of the time one wants the head teacher to discuss things and to come to a voluntary agreement. Despite that, the provisions are about trying to enforce the authority of the school in a situation in which everything else has failed.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

We are talking about a preliminary stage. We are saying that there are supportive measures that we can introduce quickly enough, which must surely be the basis of the provisions—by the way, I am supporting the Bill in not seeing the head teacher as part of the process. However, we need to be logical all the way through. If one puts in ''head teacher'' at this point in the Bill, one needs to have it all the way through, because things will not work otherwise. That is the argument for keeping the head teacher out. There is a longer process.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I said that part of the basis for our amendments is the fact that the Government refer a lot to head teachers in subsequent clauses. Because of that we are trying to be logical all the way through, as the hon. Lady suggests we should be, by putting ''head teacher'' in this clause.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

That is the point that I am trying to make. We need to get consistency at the beginning, which is why I am throwing the challenge back at the Minister. If one leaves the head teacher out, one must consider the inclusion of the governing body, because that leads to a halfway house.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Let me first turn to amendments No. 43 and 46. I understand the intention behind the amendments. Head teachers who work with parents daily should and will have a say in how best both to persuade those parents to take responsibility for their children's attendance and behaviour and to support them in doing so. However, a parenting contract may require a parent to attend guidance or counselling sessions, which must be funded. The party that enters into the contractual arrangement with the parent must therefore supply the funding.

In a school, the governing body currently has control over the budget; although it body delegates certain powers to the head teacher, it has responsibility for the budget. That is why the governing body is being given the power to enter into a parenting contract.

Under the amendment, the head teacher alone, without the approval of the governing body, could

enter into a commitment that involved a financial liability. That responsibility should rest with the governing body. There are different levels of delegation in different circumstances in different schools. We are not trying to impose a rigid system to override that. However, unless we want to blur the responsibility for a school's budget, it must be the governing body that enters into a contractual arrangement that could lead to financial liability.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am slightly concerned about where the Minister is taking us. It seems that the clause reflects who is to carry the can financially rather than the best way of managing a disruptive child. If the concern is over finances, we should make arrangements to deal with that, perhaps at LEA level. It is not wise to justify the clause purely on the ground of financial responsibility.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I ask the hon. Gentleman not to be so silly so early in the morning. We are considering voluntary contracts entered into with parents in order to try to control the behaviour of their children, and the support that is needed on the other side of the equation in order for those to work. That involves a cost and a fundamental principle—when one takes a decision, one has to take responsibility for the facts that flow from it. The Liberal Democrats may not understand that, as is illustrated by some of their taxation policy, as well as their comments in Committee. If the governing body is going to pay for the support that will be necessary to make the contract work, the governing body must have the legal power to enter into the contract. If the LEA is to bear those financial consequences, it should have that legal responsibility. The Liberal Democrats appear to believe that we can give the responsibility to one body and impose financial consequences on another. We cannot.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I now have a concern because it is sometimes difficult to persuade schools to take on pupils who have been excluded from other schools. It is right for a school to want a parenting contract if it is to accept a pupil who has been excluded but I cannot see a governing body being keen on accepting something that will take a chunk out of its budget. Does the Minister envisage that the LEA will be more proactive in such cases?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

In all probability, it will. That is why the LEA is there—it will provide the necessary services. However, the school will potentially provide some back-up. None of that is cost free. If a contract has to be entered into, which might involve a cost to the school, the governing body should have control over who enters into it. If the costs are to be borne by the LEA, it should have power over the contract. It is not unreasonable to suggest that those who risk incurring a financial burden should be those who enter into the contract, who sign it and who accept responsibility in the first instance.

Whoever enters into a contract with a parent, whether it is an LEA or a governing body, has to be trusted by the parent. At this stage, the contract is entirely voluntary. The LEA or governing body have

the option to enter into a contract, because they must satisfy themselves that they are capable of delivering their side of the bargain. It would be no good if they entered into a contract that they were not in a position to fulfil.

We do not expect governing bodies to take a route that imposes ridiculous burdens on their own budgets. They will not do that. They must feel comfortable that the liability that they accept is one that they can fulfil and that they see as a priority, and they must approach their side of the bargain freely.

The governing body may choose to delegate the power to a head teacher; we expect that to happen in many schools. I assure members of the Committee that although the Bill does not give head teachers separate powers with respect to parenting contracts, they will be able to play a significant role in implementing the provision.

Amendment No. 44 would have the effect of allowing the local education authority or the governing body further discretion to decide what to agree to do in their part of a parenting contract, which need not include support. That would completely change the nature of the parenting contract. The provision is designed to provide a parent with the support to enable them better to perform their responsibilities.

The amendment is not necessary if its intention is that the local education authority or the governing body should be able to include additional material as well as the statement that it agrees to provide the support. The provision as drafted does not prevent the contract from containing any other statements by the local education authority or governing body, provided that the parent signs up to the contract. The only real restriction on the contents of a contract is that it should be agreed by both parties.

Amendment No. 45 is also unnecessary. Clause 18 already provides that a parenting contract should contain a statement that the parent agrees to comply with the requirements specified in the parenting contract. Subsection (5) provides that the contract ''may include'' a requirement to attend counselling or guidance. Counselling and guidance are mentioned specifically as they are an important aspect of a parenting contract but that does not mean that the parent is limited to those requirements.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Guidance and counselling sessions for parents are fundamental to the proper working of the clause. Will the Minister confirm that he will talk to whoever is responsible for ensuring that enough of those guidance and counselling sessions are provided, so that they become a practical option under the parenting contracts?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We will have to do a lot of work to ensure that all the agencies buy into the measures and that the facilities are provided to make them work. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills and others in Government will have to follow that through, to ensure that such provision is made.

Amendment No. 47 seeks to make the parent who has signed the contract subject to obligations in the contract and in tort, whereas the local education authority or governing body would not be subject to those obligations. That would defeat the object of' parenting contracts, which is to work on a voluntary basis with parents. The threat of creating contractual obligations and liability in tort would make parents far less likely to sign a contract. One could even envisage cases in which parents were given legal advice not to enter into a contract with the school, for fear of taking on such liability.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants an element of coercion by the authorities, and that exists in the Bill. The situation must be looked at in the round, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said. Down the road, potentially, is a binding parenting order imposed by the court. As it does not involve going to court or the law, the parenting contract arrangement will cut out bureaucracy and coercion when parents are happy to enter into the contract and to pick up their responsibilities. Imposing a potential legal liability on the parents at that first stage would not be helpful.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I was confident that he would, the Minister is addressing difficult issues very sensitively. He will accept that we are debating a judgment call but does he recognise that, as head teachers have told me, solicitors for a disruptive family who would advise parents not to sign up to a parenting contract if there were legal liability are just as likely to give that advice if there is no legal liability? One must try to understand how such a situation appears to head teachers, who often have 20 or 30 years' experience of dealing with disruptive families.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I accept entirely the hon. Gentleman's point, and if we were examining parenting contracts in isolation from the rest of the powers in the Bill, he would be right that we should consider coercive powers. However, taken with the other measures that are available, I hope that he can see that the potential exists for a voluntary agreement in many cases. The lawyers that he mentioned would have to be mindful that, if their clients failed to address voluntarily the problems that their child was causing, they would be leaving them open to further action. They would have a duty to advise their clients about that.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I hope not to get a rebuke similar to that which the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—in my case, any stupidity would be natural rather than conscionable. We have talked about parent or parents, and I have looked through the Bill to find a definition of that. Does the contract have to cover both parents if a child is living with both of them? What would happen if one parent were happy to sign a contract but the other one were not? I am sure that there is a good legal answer but I would like clarification.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is treachery rather than stupidity to ask me a question like that at this time in the morning. [Laughter.] I have learnt to be wary of the hon. Gentleman over some time, and I shall come back

to him on what would happen if one parent were prepared to agree while another were not.

The threat of creating a contractual obligation and liability would make parents less likely to enter into a contract and would defeat the object of the voluntary part of the arrangements. If there is a lack of co-operation, the local education authority and governing body may, in cases of exclusion from school for serious misbehaviour, apply to the court for a free-standing parenting order. The courts may take into account any refusal to enter into or breach of a parenting contract in deciding whether to impose such an order. In cases of truancy, the local education authority or the authorised school staff could issue a penalty notice under clause 22, or the LEA could prosecute for the offence.

Amendment No. 48 would remove the necessity for LEAs and governing bodies to have regard to any guidance issued about parenting contracts in cases of exclusion from school or truancy. That would compromise our aim that parenting contracts should be used consistently across the country. We intend the guidance to advise on when to consider using parenting contracts for tackling poor behaviour, attendance or both, and when the measures would be appropriate for use in exclusion cases. Parents should be able to feel confident that they will receive similar equitable treatment, irrespective of the school that their child attends. Guidance should ensure that that is the case.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has reflected on the matter and thinks that it is dreadfully authoritarian. I do not think that that is the case. We are talking about the words, ''must have regard''. We are not talking about a need to comply with the letter of the guidance in every circumstance. I do not think that we are far apart in the matter. He contends that the words should be, ''should have regard''. I do not think that the measure is quite as draconian as many people believe. The local education authority or governing body need not slavishly follow the guidance if it is inappropriate in an individual case. If there is good reason in an individual case, the local education authority can depart from the guidance.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am pleased that the Minister understands that it is not only we who are saying this—the teaching and voluntary organisations have made their concerns known. Does he understand that if the Bill contains phrases such as ''must have regard to'', the impression in the minds of a governing body or a head teacher is that they really must do it? That tends towards the slavish following of the words. If the words were, ''should have regard to'', it would be different. I realise that it is a small point but will he acknowledge that it is a valid point, and keep the matter under review? Having considered not only what we have said but what some of the teaching bodies and voluntary charitable bodies have said, perhaps he will consider tabling an amendment.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman is worried about presentational issues. He seems to be urging me

to appear soft and cuddly, on behalf of the Government.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

No, don't do it.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I understand that matters can be misinterpreted but I am not sure that that is the case in this instance. The words do not sound dreadfully authoritarian to me. However, I will reflect on the words of the hon. Gentleman.

I have gathered my thoughts on the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) about the situation where one parent was happy to go along with a contract but another was not. Parenting orders and parenting contracts could apply to one or both parents. If one parent is unwilling, the potential is there to enter into a contract with the willing parent. That contract would not be binding on the unwilling parent and that is potentially problematic. In those circumstances, a parenting order may be more appropriate. Many cases will involve an absent parent who is not associated with a child's welfare. The parent with responsibility for care will be able to enter into the contract, and the school will be free to enter into a voluntary contract with that parent. It is possible that there will be circumstances in which both parenting contracts and parenting orders will apply.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Member for Uxbridge has made a valid point. I am aware of an instance in which two parents have split up. One parent has mental health problems and the children are with that parent for half the week. When the children are with that parent, they fail to attend school. When they are with the other parent, they attend perfectly normally. My concern is about how that should be dealt with. If parenting orders are to be issued, will they be issued to the parent who is getting the children to school, or to the parent who is failing to get the children to school? That is a grey area.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Any Member of Parliament who holds surgeries and deals with some of the problems that come before them will know how many difficulties there are. As I said, we are talking about a voluntary arrangement. If one parent is doing their best, and there is a degree of compliance in terms of what is sought from the child, the school or the LEA will want to enter into a parenting contract not with that part of the partnership but with the part that is failing. As I said, entering into the contract will be voluntary. Of course, in court cases and in the coercive situation of an order further down the line, the courts will have to wrestle with all the complexities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I do not pretend that that will be easy.

Amendment No. 206 would exclude the LEA from signing a parenting contract. It is intended to ensure that LEAs do not act in isolation when entering into such a contract but it would leave the governing body as the only party able to sign one with the parent. We appreciate that there will be many circumstances in which the governing body is best placed to arrange a contract on behalf of the school but that will not always be the case. LEA officers often work directly with the pupils and families that parenting contracts are meant to help.

Where pupils persistently fail to attend school, the LEA, through its education welfare service, works closely with those pupils, their parents and schools to bring about an improvement in attendance. Similarly, the LEA would be involved if a pupil were excluded from school, either permanently or for a series of fixed periods. In permanent exclusion cases, for example, the LEA is responsible for reintegrating pupils into full-time education. In some cases, therefore, it will be most suitable for the LEA to enter into the contract.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am glad that the Minister mentioned LEA education welfare services. To an extent, our amendments were intended to draw him out on such issues and to get him to respond to them on the record.

The head teachers and experienced counsellors to whom I spoke asked why the Bill made no mention of what used to be called truancy officers. We are, after all, talking about children playing truant. Of course, truancy officers have been given the new and—to use the Minister's phrase—more cuddly-sounding title of education welfare officers. None the less, would not it be sensible—this is one of the issues I had in mind, although I did not table any amendments on it, and I am glad that the Minister raised it—for the Government to include education welfare officers in the Bill?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The reason why is along the same lines as that for including the governors rather than head teachers of schools. Head teachers will often be at the forefront of sorting the issues out but the liability will be on the governing body. The Bill must therefore draw the governing body into the contract. In the same way, liability will be with the LEA, albeit that the work is done by the education welfare service—the old truancy officers, as the hon. Gentleman rightly noted. I think that the point is covered, as far as legislative necessity is concerned, by saying that the LEA must be the partner in the contract. We want parenting contracts to be used widely, and maintaining the flexibility for the LEA or the governing body to enter into and to sign parenting contracts will make that possible.

We intend to issue guidance to emphasise the importance of collaboration between the LEA and the school in arranging parenting contracts. The guidance will stress that the LEA should not act in isolation when entering into such contracts.

Under amendment No. 207, there might be no consequences should either of the parties that entered into a contract fail to carry out what they committed themselves. For example, either party could sue the other in the county court for breach of contract. The aim underlying the contract is to encourage parents who are unable to deal with their child's poor behaviour or bad attendance because they have poor parenting skills to accept support, at that stage voluntarily. We want the process to be as straightforward as possible. As I said earlier, the threat of proceedings would act as a disincentive for the parents to enter into a contract. In addition,

parenting contracts are two-sided agreements. If we introduced sanctions against parents for breaches, we would have to introduce similar sanctions against LEAs and schools, and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has already pointed out some of the difficulties and liabilities that schools might face should we go down that road.

I make a wider point in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. There seems to be a view abroad—we have all heard it—that caring services ought to be almost exclusively caring, and that they should not get involved in enforcement because it breaks the relationship that they are trying to build with the people whom they serve. I totally reject that. I do not see why enforcement services, such as the police, should not have concerns or cares about the consequences of what they are doing. I do not believe that caring services, such as education welfare services, schools or social services departments, should see their role as exclusively supportive. There is an enforcement role, and I do not see why one should detract from the other.

We must keep sending the message to organisations that are supposed to be performing a public service that they should not draw those lines and distinctions. In many circumstances, their responsibilities are holistic. The hon. Lady raises a problem. People say, ''Oh dear. We can't possibly go there. It would ruin our relationship with the parents or with our clients''. I reject that as nonsense.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I speak with some experience on the matter, again, based on example, not firm or widespread evidence. Education welfare officers already deal with parenting orders. They have much experience of operating on behalf of the youth offending teams. Those to whom I have spoken have said that they try to separate their roles under parenting orders. One educational welfare officer will do the pursuing and the hard part of the parenting order, and another from the same authority will deal with some of the other aspects of the order. Some professionals, at least, have made that deliberate decision in order to make the orders workable. We cannot pronounce that there is only one way to do these things.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am not saying that it is as simple as that but I know that such views exist and are held fairly widely. I believe that they are potentially damaging. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath says, it is like the good cop, bad cop routine. Social services departments, schools and so on all have an enforcement job—to educate children or to look after children in need. They cannot simply walk away from that side of the job while getting on with the rest of it.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Before a parenting contract is considered, the school will have been involved in supporting children and parents in a number of ways, in order to get the children to school and to behave acceptably. The school would clearly be able to demonstrate that such an approach had been taken but had not succeeded, which is where parenting contracts kick in.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That is a far more mature way of going about things than pretending to parents that there are no sanctions. We must provide back-up, support and care—and sometimes sanctions. It is not for anyone to say, ''It is my job to provide support. Somebody else will do dreadful things to you if you do not comply.'' It is a false division. It has nothing to do with the amendment.

I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has set out the Government's response in his usual careful way. There are judgment calls to be made, and I am sure that there will be further interesting debates when the Bill is considered in another place. As we know, many Members of the other place have spent a lifetime working with children, including in education, and they will have much to say about it. Given that the Minister said that he would keep certain matters under review, the legislation may take account of some of my points.

I shall not press the amendments to a vote, although they are important, because they involve matters of judgment. I strongly agree with and endorse the view that the Minister expressed towards the end of his remarks: all agencies have a responsibility to emphasise the toughness, rather than concentrate only on what one might call the soft-cop approach. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole disagrees, well, the Liberal Democrats are always on the side of the soft cop, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) observed. That is one reason why they lack credibility. I totally agree with the Minister's latter remarks about the need for sanctions.

It is fair to say, however, that some of the charitable organisations that have written to me and perhaps to other members of the Committee, such as Barnardo's and the Children's Society, have expressed concerns. It is fascinating that the Children's Society says that the extension of the powers in this part of the Bill is ''open to debate''. That is why we are debating it. Barnardo's also sent a helpful brief, saying of the legislation:

''There is no requirement for the LEA or Governing Body to consult with or make reference to any other agency or person before establishing a contract''.

Again, it was important to make that point on the record, and the Government might want to consider it. We did not feel the need to table amendments in that respect, but I thought it important to state the fact that organisations such as Barnardo's and the Children's Society, which do very valuable work, have made those observations. The Government and others can consider them as the Bill progresses.

At this stage, I do not seek to pursue these matters further. There are related issues about which we feel even more strongly and to which we shall return under later amendments, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

The last part of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister and the contribution made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath are crucial to the debate on trying to change the culture of some of the agencies that work in this field. Agencies need to understand that it does not help children if they talk only about supporting, consulting and working together. There comes a time when people must almost be forced to accept their responsibilities. In some cases, parents, whether there is one parent or two parents, have to be forced to accept their responsibilities. In some cases, it will be for the courts to determine where the responsibility lies.

The crucial point is that people fundamentally misunderstand how society works if they say that it is always in the children's interests to act in a soft way in respect of those who do not accept their responsibilities. It is not true to say that, because at the end of the day it often is in a child's interests to force the parents, through legislation if necessary, to accept their responsibilities. If we cannot effect that cultural change with some agencies in terms of adopting a soft-cop, hard-cop regime, some of the Committee's aspirations will be difficult to meet.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 - Parenting orders in cases of

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in

clause 19, page 16, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 49, in

clause 19, page 16, line 31, leave out 'twelve months' and insert 'two years'.

Amendment No. 50, in

clause 19, page 16, line 34, leave out 'three' and insert 'twelve'.

Amendment No. 51, in

clause 19, page 16, line 34, leave out

'and not more than once in any week'.

Amendment No. 151, in

clause 20, page 16, line 42, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Amendment No. 152, in

clause 20, page 16, line 43, leave out '(amongst other things)'.

Amendment No. 52, in

clause 20, page 17, line 13, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 53, in

clause 20, page 17, line 16, leave out 'must' and insert 'should'.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Amendment No. 150 is simply a probing amendment. It seeks to delete subsection (1)(b), a rather vague statement that refers to:

''such conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made by the appropriate person are satisfied.''

We should like to have some idea of the sort of regulations that might be made in future before passing firm comment. Is that vagueness simply a symptom of the rushed nature of the Bill, and does the Minister have more up his sleeve?

Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 involve time limits and I will leave it to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to speak to those. The alternatives look rather long. I apologise to the Conservative Front Bench: we should have added our names to amendment No. 51 as it is very important. We need to consider the circumstances of individual parents: a single parent may be able to attend classes only at certain hours of the day; or they might have to take a concentrated course lasting only a short time to fit in with their working hours. More flexibility is needed. If someone is willing to attend more than once a week, we should allow that. I strongly support that amendment.

Amendment No. 151 takes us to the argument about using ''may'' instead of ''must''. We have talked about parenting orders as being part of a process that leads from the parenting contract. We hope that the contract works, because the voluntary process, with the full co-operation of everyone, has to be the best way. Although it may be necessary to go on to parenting orders—hopefully, in only a few extreme cases—we do not want to back the court into a corner in cases in which special circumstances might need to be taken into account. Often, children go off the rails for a short time after a bereavement in the family. The conditions of a parenting contract might not be met in a period of about six months, but it is possible to get that family back together again. The use of ''must'' is too prescriptive in cases in which it might be possible to get back into a parenting contract which, by definition, will always work best.

Amendment No. 152 is also prompted by the Bill's vagueness, which we do not like. It would remove the phrase ''(amongst other things)''. I hope that the Bill will state that all relevant and important factors will be taken into account. Why is that vague phrase needed? If it is appropriate in clause 20, why should it not be found throughout the Bill? Amendment No. 52 would remove clause 20(4), which is a catch-all provision, because we are worried about what it could mean in future. We want to know what we are signing up to. Is the provision another example of the Bill being rushed, with a view taken to sort it out later? Amendment No. 53 is similar to amendment No. 151 and I endorse it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We have some amendments in this group, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has pointed out. I am grateful to her for stressing her party's support for some of our amendments—particularly amendment No. 51. Some of the amendments in the group amend clause 20, not clause 19, but I understand that they have been grouped together because they cover similar issues. May I return the compliment to the hon. Lady and say that we understand entirely the aim of the Liberal Democrats? Their amendment No. 150 tries to deal

with a Henry VIII clause. Like her, we shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.

We are again considering time limits. As in our debate on Tuesday about crack houses, there is a judgment call to be made about the maximum amount of time for which a parenting order applies. We think that two years would be a better maximum than 12 months. All of us—including the Minister, who has referred to his surgery experiences—have in our constituencies very disruptive families with a multitude of problems. People who come to our surgeries or write to us may be dealing with many different agencies and their problems take a long time to resolve. In some cases, sadly, their children's whole time at school is blighted by those problems. I see the Minister nodding; I am sure that he has come across such families.

Any period up to the limit can be chosen, but we felt that a maximum of two years would be more sensible than a restrictive 12 months. I hope that the Minister will, as he helpfully has done on other issues, offer to keep the matter under review. It might be that in another place, some of those with long experience of child care and education issues will agree that two years would be a wiser maximum period.

I have in mind the case in my constituency of a large child with a dominant personality and his single mother. The child has been described to me by the head teacher of the special school that he has been attending as having such a powerful personality, even at the age of about 13, that he completely dominates his mother, who is a relatively small lady. The child is used to getting his own way, and to influence him requires a huge investment of time. Going by how long I have been dealing with the case and how long the head teacher of the special school and LEA officials have been dealing with the child, I believe that that case will take a great deal longer than 12 months to sort out. Because of such cases, I think that it is important that the clause allow for a period of more than 12 months.

Even more crucially, with reference to our amendment No. 50, we feel that the guidance should be available for up to 12 months. I stress ''up to''; if three or four months were appropriate, that could be allowed. We are discussing the maximum, and we feel that three months is too little. Amendment No. 51, for which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has stressed her support, reflects our view that it is essential to have the opportunity to have the classes more than once a week. We cannot see any logic in the wording and I am glad that the hon. Lady agrees. There is no reason to restrict the sessions to

''not more than once in any week''.

Some children—and some parents—need intensive involvement, so we cannot understand why the wording is so restrictive.

The Liberal Democrats have put their names to our amendment No. 52, which seeks to remove another Henry VIII provision in clause 20(4). The hon. Lady supports our intention to change ''must'' to ''should'' for the reasons that I advanced in connection with the previous group of amendments. We feel even more

strongly than we did in the previous case that ''should'' would make for a wiser phraseology. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind. I do not wish to detain the Committee further, but I hope that the Minister will treat seriously our genuine attempts to improve the Bill. We feel strongly about those matters.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The clause enables local education authorities to apply for a parenting order if

''a pupil has been excluded . . . from . . . school for a fixed period or permanently''

and conditions specified in regulations are met. Conservative amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are intended to double the maximum duration of a parenting order from 12 to 24 months, and to quadruple the maximum duration that a parent would be required to attend a parenting class under a parenting order from three to 12 months. We believe that 12 months is an adequate maximum for parents to be placed under an order and that three months is adequate for a parenting course. If they require additional parenting support, we would prefer parents to opt for it voluntarily. That would be more effective than parents being required to undergo orders and programmes for a much longer period.

The relevant clauses replicate the duration of an order and the parenting classes involved in that parenting order as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The amendments would lead to an inconsistent approach to the execution of parenting orders and could cause confusion in their use. We believe that the periods in the Bill are the optimum and should not be altered. Before the hon. Member for Surrey Heath intervenes, let me say that I tried to check whether we had any representations on orders made under other legislation. I am told that none said that the orders were restrictive and that longer periods were wanted.

It would not be necessary to place the mother whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned under a parenting order if she was willing and simply needed support to deal with the dreadful situation that she faced. It needs to be made clear that enforcement relates to the parent, not the child.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand what the Minister is saying, but will he say how many such orders have been made under the 1998 Act? My impression is that it has not been extensively used. He may have to write to me and to other members of the Committee if he does not have that information to hand. Some of the measures in the Act have not been regarded as especially effective, particularly in my part of the country. There has been some criticism of the fact that the Act has not been used extensively, but that may not be the case nationally, and I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know.

Surely it would be helpful not to have to restart the whole process if three months is found to be not long enough? Traveller families, for example, might be made subject to an order for a short period, go to one class and not go again. The whole process would have

to start again if the period is restricted to three months.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will think about the latter point, as that could be a difficulty. There were 3,106 parenting orders made under the initial legislation and, for the Committee's information, that does not represent a rising trend. We want them to be used more widely, but several parenting orders have been issued under other legislation. As I said, as far as I am aware, we have not had representations that the time limits are restrictive. The hon. Gentleman's second point, about having to start the whole process again in certain circumstances, is worth my exploring it.

Clause 20 relates to the process of issuing a parenting order in cases of exclusion from school. Amendment No. 52 is intended to remove the power to issue further regulations relating specifically to that new use of parenting orders. The regulations will be used to set out who meets the cost of counselling or guidance sessions. The LEA staff are responsible for applying for a parenting order, and they may agree to do so on behalf of the school. We will therefore need to specify who will pay for the counselling or the guidance sessions. We expect the LEA to bear the costs associated with parenting orders, except where an alternative arrangement has been agreed with the school.

We want to ensure that there is an appropriate method of apportioning the costs, where necessary. We need to consult on that with those who are directly affected, which is why we want to leave the detail for inclusion in the regulations. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern: when I first saw the provision, I shared his view that it was not necessary and that we could have included more in the Bill rather than left it to secondary legislation. However, I do not believe that we will be able during the passage of the Bill to conduct the consultation to clarify the circumstances in which there is a crossing over of the burden of costs. If we were able to do so, it would be helpful to include it in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I understand entirely what the Minister says, and I am grateful to him for saying that his first reaction to the proposed wording was the same as ours. Can he provide the Committee with drafts of the guidance that he and his advisers are considering? That would be informative and helpful not only for the members of the Committee, but for those involved in debates on Report and in another place.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That is reasonable request and I shall see whether it is a practical possibility during the passage of the Bill.

For a parenting order made in cases of exclusion from school, the responsible officer could be a head teacher or a person nominated by a head teacher rather than the LEA officer already specified in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The regulations will be used to set out whom a head teacher may nominate as a responsible officer. That too will be subject to consultation.

Amendment No. 53 would remove the necessity for LEAs and governing bodies to have regard to any

guidance issued regarding parenting orders in cases of exclusion. That would compromise our aim that parenting orders should be used in a consistent fashion throughout the country. It is intended that the guidance will cover, among other things, when to consider applying for a parenting order during the exclusion process. Parents should be confident that they will receive similar and equitable treatment regardless of the school that their child attends. The guidance will ensure that that is the case, provided LEAs have regard to it. The obligation in the clause is to ''have regard to'' the guidance, which relates to the discussion that we had about parenting contracts. That means that the LEA or governing body need not slavishly follow the guidance if it is inappropriate in a particular case.

Amendment No. 51 would allow more flexibility in the delivery of parenting programmes by removing the one session per week restriction. I was glad to hear the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on that amendment. We recognise that there are circumstances in which it would be reasonable for sessions to be held more or less frequently than once a week. The clause therefore needs to be modified to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of programmes under parenting orders, for example by making a residential component possible where it is considered necessary. However, simply deleting the words would also have the effect of enabling a three-month long residential course to take place, which is not what we intended and would not be proportionate.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

My hon. Friend the Minister has made some interesting points. He mentioned a residential component, perhaps for parents who have a parenting order imposed on them. Could he reassure me again that he will talk to his colleagues at the DFES about ensuring that there is adequate provision of guidance and counselling sessions, and of residential components if appropriate? Could he also clarify what is meant by a residential component?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

In serious circumstances of chaotic parenting arrangements, residential provision should be considered. My hon. Friend is right that if we are going to have that, there needs to be provision in the community as well as the enabling power to allow authorities to impose it. That will not be a necessity in every situation, but only in particular and tough circumstances. I agree with my hon. Friend—it will be no good if we provide only the legislative framework without the wherewithal.

If we extended the provisions in the way suggested by the amendment, it could interfere with the family responsibilities or child care arrangements of the parent and therefore have the opposite effect from the one intended. In addition, changing parenting orders alone will make them inconsistent with those made under the 1998 Act. Further work is needed on the drafting of the provisions to achieve a more flexible parenting order that is fully compatible with human rights. That will require Government amendments. We will examine the matter and table amendments that, I

hope, meet the points made by both Opposition parties.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise to be helpful and think ahead. The Government's White Paper referred to the Dundee experiment, which was conducted in the context of housing. People who were not living well with their neighbours—to put it mildly—were put into a residential situation. Parenting orders would fit in with that. I have not looked ahead to see where in the Bill we will debate orders relating to housing issues, but links to and changes in wording of those clauses could provide an holistic approach for the whole family.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I assure the hon. Lady that we acknowledge the need for flexibility and, at one end of the spectrum, residential provision. It is our intention to introduce Government amendments in that vein; she can examine them carefully and if she is not satisfied, I am certain that she will make her views known.

Turning to the Liberal Democrat amendments, the precise circumstances in which an application can be made for a parenting order when a child has been excluded will be governed by regulations mentioned in subsection (1)(b), which amendment No. 150 would remove. The amendment would mean that each and any fixed period exclusion, including one-day exclusions, could trigger an application for a parenting order. Our intention is that an application for a parenting order should be made only following a permanent exclusion or a pattern of fixed period exclusions, and it is important that we set that out as a minimum condition in the regulations.

In addition, we intend that the guidance should state that an application for a parenting order should be made only when the exclusions are for serious misbehaviour. Examples of what constitutes serious misbehaviour will be given: they are likely to include violent and threatening behaviour. We intend to consult on the details of any regulations made under the clause.

Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 would ensure that neither the parent's previous conduct in relation to a parenting contract—their refusal to sign or failure to comply with a signed contract, for example—nor other matters, which might include mitigating circumstances, must necessarily be taken into account by the court in considering an application for a parenting order. The Government believe that the court should have to take into account any previous refusal by the parent to enter into a parenting contract or breach of any contract into which they had entered.

Parenting contracts are intended to help parents to focus on what needs to be done to improve their child's attendance at school or behaviour and to provide support to enable them to do that. If the parent refuses support or fails to keep to their side of an arrangement, that is highly relevant evidence for the court in considering whether to make a parenting order. I disagree with the Liberal Democrat amendments for those reasons. The clause makes it clear that the things to which I have referred are not

the only things that the court must take into account: such ''other things'' might include any extenuating circumstances that the parent might wish to offer in evidence. The clause as drafted is intended to avoid any doubt about the issues that must be considered.

I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will withdraw the amendment. I ask the Committee to consider all other amendments, including amendment No. 51, in the light of the tabling of Government amendments on Report.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

In relation the Conservative amendments, I am particularly grateful that the Government have accepted the argument that we put forward in amendment No. 51. I was slightly puzzled that the Minister said that if the wording suggested by that amendment were adopted, a situation could arise whereby people ended up with a three-month, every-day parenting order. Amendment No. 51 would not have that effect because the period would still be only up to 12 months if we removed the restriction. However, I understand the Government's wish to table their own amendments, which will also introduce the residential component.

The Minister's response has been helpful. What he said about tabling amendments to achieve exactly what amendment No. 51 is designed to achieve is welcome. We shall not press the matter in the light of the Minister's helpful concession.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. May I clarify that the hon. Member who is in charge of this group of amendments is a Liberal Democrat?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am not asking the hon. Gentleman to vote down or withdraw amendment No. 51. It is acceptable. The Committee should accept it, although it will need to be clarified by Government amendments. I apologise for causing confusion and I hope that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will move amendment No. 51.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Amendment No. 51 is a Conservative amendment and the Liberal Democrats did not add their name to it, although they did to another one. However, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole quite rightly expressed support for amendment No. 51. In the light of the Minister's response, I will move amendment No. 51 formally. The Government have said that they will accept it and we are obviously delighted—that is how Committees ought to work. The Opposition have come up with an amendment; in this case the other Opposition party have supported us; and the Government will accept it and will add other measures. That is tremendous and will lead to an improvement to the Bill. That is a good example of how a Committee stage ought to work.

When the media talk about the proceedings in Parliament, it is sad that they pay so little attention to the hours that we spend doing line-by-line, word-by-word scrutiny. People outside this place get confused about the difference between Select Committees, interest group committees and Standing Committees, which are the most important of all. It is sad that too little attention is paid to the hours of work that are

done here. Perhaps the Opposition and the Government can use the present case as an example of how Committee work can improve a Bill.

I am sure that by introducing a residential element the Government amendments will improve matters still further. There is complete agreement between Opposition Members and the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the need to provide the resources for residential components. When he intervened on the Minister to ask about the residential aspect, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said to me that it would be a good idea to have a residential element.

The Minister might have slightly misunderstood what I said about the case in my constituency. That case was of a mother who, because of her son's dominant nature, needed a huge amount of help to show her how she could cope with him. The head of the special school said that there should be a provision whereby that mother could be taught how to do that. The mother would certainly have needed more than one session a week, so perhaps I did not explain very well. The Minister suggested that the mother might volunteer, but I do not think that she would have done. That example sprang to my mind as a case in which the Bill might help.

Having promised to move formally amendment No. 51, which the Minister has said he will accept, I am happy not to press our other amendments. However, as you rightly pointed out, Mr. O'Brien, the Liberal Democrat amendment is the lead amendment, so the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is in charge of the group. I am sure that the Clerk will have advised you how the Committee proceeds formally in relation that.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I shall withdraw amendment No. 150, but first I want to comment briefly on it and on amendment No. 52. Now that the Minister has explained the regulations, we all understand—although we might not be very happy about the fact that there will be a lot of work, including a lot of consultation, to do after the Bill has gone through, the results of which we might have appreciated had they been available at an earlier stage. None the less, I ask him to consider the possibility that the position would be clearer if we put in brackets what the regulations covered, or if the headings on the list of regulations narrowed their scope. In that way, we could be reassured during the later stages of the Bill's passage that the regulations would not be a catch-all. I quite accept what the Minister said, but as things stand, regulations could mean a wide range of changes.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

What has been said has been very constructive. If I can go further and provide drafts, I shall do so. If I cannot go that far but am in a position to provide some headlines, I can at least do that. We will look into doing that.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister, and I echo his comments: we have had a very constructive discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 51, in

clause 19, page 16, line 34, leave out

'and not more than once in any week'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I want to make two brief points. First, the Minister has announced a very radical policy, which represents a welcome development in policy terms. A residential component will be one of the options available under the orders, although we need to know a little more about what we mean by a residential option, and I hope that the Minister will tell us when he is able to. For the reasons given by many members of the Committee, it is important that such an option is available to help parents and families who are in desperate need of support to deal with some of their problems. I shall raise the issue again when we reach the housing part of the Bill. Part of the problem with housing is that local authorities will not evict families who cause mayhem—indeed, the courts will not give the orders—because they are worried about putting families on the streets. The residential option is therefore hugely important.

We shall have to give serious consideration to how we support schools in pushing for parenting contracts or parenting orders, given that some parents are capable of intimidating teachers. Some teachers, schools and authorities simply will not pursue a parenting order or penalty notice for some families, because they are intimidated by them. The Minister and his colleagues have been considering how to deal with the problem, but unless we give teachers and other professionals the confidence to go down that route, the orders will be available but they will not be used because teachers and other professionals will be intimidated. We must reverse that trend and rebalance the situation so that it is parents who do not conform to society's generally accepted rules, not those who abide by them, who are intimidated.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Penalty notices for parents

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in

clause 22, page 18, line 23, leave out 'or a head teacher'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 154, in

clause 22, page 18, line 25, leave out 'of a prescribed description'.

Amendment No. 55, in

clause 22, page 19, leave out line 13.

Amendment No. 56, in

clause 22, page 19, leave out lines 14 to 18.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

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.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

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

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.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

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

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 (Labour, Erewash)

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.

However, 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 (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

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

''a member of the staff of a relevant school . . . who is authorised''.

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 (Labour, 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 (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

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

''provision for determining the local education authority to which a penalty is payable.''

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.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Ah!

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am prompted to rise by the Minister saying ''Ah!'' in a significant way. He was obviously anticipating that he would be able to say that the definition will not cover newly qualified teachers. Does the hon. Member for Ludlow agree that in many schools that have massive problems, particularly in some of the difficult inner-city areas, the vast majority of staff have qualified as teachers only in the past one, two or three years? The legislation contains no restriction to stop an authorised member of staff being a newly qualified teacher.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is precisely my point, and the Government should examine it. There is a potential problem, as the hon. Gentleman said, especially in

some London schools, where it is rare to find a teacher who has been there for more than three years, such is the turnover of staff. Many teachers move from inner-London schools after their first two years to seek employment elsewhere. That is unfortunate because we need the most experienced in the more difficult schools, but there is a move away from that.

Highly experienced teachers seem to like to move to beautiful Shropshire when they reach their 40s. That is great for us, as we have wonderful schools and wonderful teachers, but it does not help the staff salaries bill, because they are the more expensive teachers. That is another related problem.

Overall, the Government must clarify the definition if they want to push the power through. They will have problems in another place on the provision in general, so they will have to make it clear that only senior members of staff may issue fixed penalty notices. I would prefer it if the provision were not passed at all, but leaving it as wide as it is could cause unwanted side effects. More experienced members of staff are more likely to be able to issue penalty notices without it leading to violence. The rising incidence of violence against teachers by parents is a growing and concerning trend, and the more experienced a teacher is in dealing with both parents and pupils, the more likely they are to avoid such dangerous situations.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Clause 22 does not require anybody to issue a fixed penalty notice; it simply introduces a power to do so. Head teachers and senior school staff will be able to make professional judgments about whether to use the new power.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Hold on a second. I will give way once I have got into my stride and said one or two things to which the hon. Gentleman may want to respond.

Amendments Nos. 54, 55 and 56 appear to suggest that teachers are not to be trusted with the new power, and that they are incapable of deciding who is able to use the power and in what circumstances. A lot of silly stuff has been said, if not in the Committee, then before it started, about every class teacher and all NQTs being obliged to use the power. I reject that.

Before discussing the amendments, we had a debate—I believe that the Liberal Democrats were on one side and the Conservatives on the other—about whether it was a good idea for certain organisations to see themselves as being apart from all those important issues. We need light rather than heat on this important issue.

Some of the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge were depressing. It worries me to have to say it, but we need to remember why we are here and why we were elected. Were we elected to accept the world as it is? Are we happy with it and with the levels of violence that occur? Do we believe that all such circumstances should be dealt with by the police and the police alone?

The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on policing, the hon. Member for South-East

Cambridgeshire, is present and will know, as I do, that the Conservative party is desperately trying to convince the country that, despite the record police numbers that we have achieved, the Conservatives would be able to provide many thousands more, although they have not identified where the money will come from. I also heard a spokesperson for the Opposition on the radio today or yesterday saying that the police should be concentrating on rural crime, but in the Committee the Opposition say that the only people who should be allowed to use fixed penalty notices to deal with truancy are the police—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Will the Minister give way? We did not say that.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The police and the LEA, but not in any circumstances—

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

On a point of order, Mr. O'Brien.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, to avoid his point of order.

The head teachers and governing bodies of some, if not all, schools have the managerial skills to decide which individuals are capable of using the powers, and who should be authorised to use them. We cannot just accept that because violence is used against staff in such circumstances they should not be allowed to do so. Violence is used against staff in other circumstances. When detention and other sanctions are taken against children, a minority of parents sometimes exhibit incredible behaviour. Would it be said that that also was an issue for the police or the LEA, and that the school had no responsibility to provide enforcement in those circumstances?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister must not overstate his case. I can respond to some of his more high-flown rhetoric and his points about the police later. However, my point was that when he began his remarks he said that we must give power to the heads or to senior staff. As he knows, the Bill does not specify senior staff—it is unrestricted. He must understand that, while we in the Opposition are not accepting the world as it is, we have to communicate to him that the organisations that represent head teachers and teachers do not want those powers, because they will put teachers in a vulnerable position. His own Back Benchers will have received the same representations from those organisations as we have. The teachers do not want those powers because they are there to teach, not to take on extra risks. He is failing to address that concern.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is wonderful when Conservative spokesmen become the lobby for the teaching organisations and teaching unions. Half the education reforms that have been pushed through would never have been passed if we had listened to what teachers wanted and what they were prepared to put up with at the time. Pain is often associated with change, and we must look at the reality of what we are trying to achieve and whether or not it is achievable. I accept that we are operating in a difficult area. However, we should not just accept it if the lobby

says, ''No, we do not want it''. That is not a good argument for anyone to advance.

Why do we want to restrict the provision to senior staff? I am the father of an NQT—I have never called her that before, not being into education jargon, but I thought that I should do it now, so that I can take Hansard home and show our Nicola what I have just done to her. It is not appropriate to delegate the powers to certain people.

What if the NQT were an ex-police officer? In order to chill out, I sometimes watch films such as ''Kindergarten Cop'', in which Schwarzenegger plays what we would call an NQT. Why must we specify in every circumstance a head teacher or a single member of staff? Have we no trust in the school establishment's ability to take sensible decisions about who should use the powers?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister said that all of us are here to change things; we do not necessarily accept things as they are. However, we are also here to ensure that we do not create open-ended powers that somebody somewhere might abuse. One of the aims of this Committee is to ensure that the law is tight enough that it cannot be abused later. Our concern is that this is not tight enough. The Minister's words are reassuring, but the Bill, as drafted, leaves it entirely to people's judgment. By and large we trust people's judgment, but the law should not rest on the judgment of teachers, staff or anybody else.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We clearly disagree. Let me put on record the Government's view, so that others can comment on what we are actually proposing. We expect most penalty notices to be issued by local education welfare officers, who also organise prosecutions for truancy. We believe that it is also right to give head teachers and senior school staff authorised by them the power to do that. We intend to use the regulation-making powers in the Bill to limit to senior staff those who may be authorised by head teachers to issue fixed penalty notices; that is not in the Bill. By senior school staff, we mean deputy heads, assistant head teachers and staff at the level of heads of department.

At present, prosecution is the only sanction available to promote and to enforce school attendance. Penalty notices will provide a quicker, cheaper alternative for use in cases in which parents need a sharp reminder of their responsibilities. Prosecution can be expensive, time consuming and heavy handed for parents who are not hard-core offenders. Our overriding objective is to get the pupil who is truanting back into school. Education professionals will be able to choose the most appropriate method to do that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am glad that the Minister is now on to the serious point and not on his rather fanciful comparison of the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to Arnold Schwarzenegger. The situation that the Minister describes, whereby guidance is to be given, is surely nothing like as good as being specific in the Bill. If he were to propose some Government amendments to restrict the responsibility, we would

have a different debate. However, he must understand the point that the hon. Member for Ludlow and I have made: many schools—some in inner-city areas and others elsewhere—have few experienced staff other than the head. Even the Minister's guidance will not deal with that.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

In those circumstances, the head will believe that there is nobody worthy of authorisation. He will therefore use the power; he will not delegate it. I cannot see a problem with that. Penalty notices are part of a range of options in a wide-ranging strategy to tackle truancy that includes national publicity, truancy sweeps, electronic registration and fast-track prosecutions as well as parenting contracts for truancy. 99

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole relates to the regulation-making power, which will set out the precise circumstances in which penalty notices may be issued. Removal of the words ''of a prescribed description'' would limit the breadth of the regulation-making power. As a result, it could not be used in a variety of circumstances. It is important that we retain the power to make such regulations.

We intend that the regulations will specify the circumstances in which a teacher might issue a penalty notice; they will be different from those in which an education welfare officer or a police constable might issue one. They operate under different circumstances and are subject to different duties arising under other legislation. For example, we would not want schools to issue fixed penalty notices to people other than their own pupils. Different regulations will be needed for different people. We would not want the same restriction to apply to constables involved in a truancy sweep.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

The Minister is making a quite persuasive case. Teachers would not mind those powers but for the fact that they are not confident of the police reacting quickly enough should something happen—whether in the school or, if they live locally, at home. If they could have confidence that a 999 call would get an instant response, the Minister's point would be valid.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I accept that we need to try to provide all members of the community, not only the teaching profession, with the confidence that back-up will be available when needed. However, unless we involve other agencies in the enforcement of antisocial behaviour orders, the police will never be able to give such an assurance because, no matter how many police officers we provide, they will be stretched every which way. We need other agencies to join in that responsibility.

The Department for Education and Skills will consult local authorities, teachers, the police and

others about regulations or guidance made under the Bill. That process will determine how fixed penalty notices should operate according to who issues them. We need to take on board the expertise of the police about exactly how and when to issue fixed penalty notices, as well as that of the LEA and school staff.

Opposition Members have made it a fundamental issue. I think that that is a big mistake. We need to push back some of the barriers. We need to work at it. I do not suggest that it will be easy, but we cannot simply accept things as they are, backing off because of lobbying or because of the actions of a minority of violent parents. Those issues have to be dealt with. We have to find quick and cost-effective methods of allowing people to deal with them.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister is right to say that we believe that it is a fundamental issue. He is wrong to say that it would depend on the police, because we have not sought to take the LEA out of the equation. We accept that LEA officers, who are remote from the potentially violent parent, could do things.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge spoke about schools not getting an instant response. That happened recently at Shawfield school in my constituency; I received a letter about it only yesterday. Although Surrey police are excellent, on that occasion the school did not get an instant response. We cannot put vulnerable teachers in that position. We shall press amendment No. 55 to a Division.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 55, in

clause 22, page 19, leave out line 13.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Standing Committee G

Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Clause 24 - Parenting contracts in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 57, in

clause 24, page 21, line 33, at end insert

'or any statement by the youth offending team which it believes, in its entire discretion, is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in

clause 24, page 21, line 41, after 'obligations', insert

'on the part of the youth offending team'.

No. 59, in

clause 24, page 22, line 1, leave out 'must' and insert 'should'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are now on to the issues of criminal conduct and antisocial behaviour, and important matters relating to the involvement of youth offending teams. Amendment No. 57 to clause 24(3)(b) would add the same words that we put forward in a previous group of amendments. They would give the provision much greater flexibility, so that

''any statement by the youth offending team which it believes, in its entire discretion, is appropriate for their side of a parenting contract''

can be included. We heard what the Minister had to say when we put forward identical words under an earlier clause this morning, Mr. Cran, when your colleague Mr. O'Brien was in the Chair. I will not need to take up much time because I anticipate that the Minister will have a similar reply. However, we felt that it was important to pursue the issue again, because youth offending teams are in a slightly different position and, we would argue, need greater flexibility. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendment would not simply restrict the words to a statement to say that the youth offending team

''agrees to provide support to the parent'';

instead, it can include anything that the team thinks is ''appropriate''. I hope that even if the Minister cannot agree with us now, he will reflect on the matter, and that he accepts that the amendment is a serious attempt to improve the Bill.

As part of the work that we on the Opposition Benches have been doing to encourage the Government to get children off the conveyor belt to crime, we have heard quite a lot of evidence from people involved with youth offending teams. I have had many discussions about the work that such teams

have been doing not only in my county of Surrey, but across the country. In particular, I have spoken with teams in the north-east of England and south Wales who work with a very good organisation called Outreach. The Minister will know that I have tabled several questions to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about that organisation's work. I may, if I recall correctly, have spoken even to the Minister about it. Also, the subject may have been mentioned in debate.

It is important, while we are talking about the links between youth offending teams and the work that they do with young people who may have gone off the rails, to get on record what Outreach does. It is a national scheme, run by the Army Cadet Force, which has built up many links with youth offending teams across the country. One of the youth offending teams that it worked with early on was that in Rhondda Cynon Taff. I have seen a superb video, produced by Lieutenant Colonel Tony Wood JP, who leads the Outreach project for the Army Cadet Force. It is about his work to get youngsters—mainly teenagers, although some of them are a bit younger—back on the straight and narrow. It uses many military resources that are already paid for by the taxpayer. That is a very cost-effective way of getting young people off the conveyor belt to crime.

A youth offending team might, for example, want to put in a parenting contract that the sort of Outreach programmes on which it works with the Army Cadet Force would be suitable for a particular young person. That is why the work of Outreach is relevant to the amendment and why I hope I am not going wide of the amendment by mentioning it. The Home Secretary has given me a very helpful answer saying that his Department supports the work of Outreach and will continue to do so, and that it recognises that youth offending teams find the organisation useful. I hope that the Minister will respond in a similar way today, because it would be helpful to hear from him on the subject while we are talking about the work of youth offending teams.

Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 deal with the issue of whether any liability arises, in contract or in tort. To a large extent, that is a repeat of the debate that we had this morning about parenting contracts. We sought to restrict the matter of obligations in contract or in tort to youth offending teams. However, I heard what the Minister said earlier about not wanting to have anything about contract or tort applying to anybody. I do not wish to pursue that matter again because that would simply be a rehash of the debate that we had this morning. I do not agree with the Minister, but I understand that he will simply repeat the same arguments.

My final point is on amendment No. 59, in which we return to the issue of ''must'' and ''should''. The aim is to make the language sound less dictatorial. Although you were not present, Mr. Cran, it will not surprise you to hear that the Minister said that the Government were saying that people should simply have regard to any guidance and that it is not as dictatorial as I would suggest. Again, we would hear the same arguments from the Minister. I do not wish

to spend any more time on amendment No. 59. The substance is to suggest to the Committee—and to the Government most of all—that it would be helpful to have wider wording in clause 24(3)(b) to give the youth offending team wider flexibility to submit statements, and not just statements that it agrees to provide support to parents.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Cran.

The contract that we are discussing would be agreed between the parent and the responsible officer from the youth offending team. The parent will agree to take specific actions to improve the child's behaviour, and to co-operate with support provided or arranged by the youth offending team. The team will agree to provide or arrange support, which will typically consist of a parenting course. Amendment No. 57 is intended to allow the YOT the discretion to include an alternative statement, instead of one that says that it agrees to provide support to the parent, for the purpose of complying with the requirement specified in the parenting statement. Amendment No. 57, therefore, has the effect of allowing the YOT the discretion to decide what it will agree to do as part of a parenting contract, which need not include the provision of support. As I have said in response to amendment No. 44, the effect of the amendment would be to change the nature of the parenting contract, which is designed to provide parents with the support to enable them to meet their responsibilities. The amendment is not necessary if it is the intention that the YOT should be able to include additional material, as well as the statement that it agrees to provide support.

As the clause is currently drafted, the parenting contract must contain a statement by the YOT that it agrees to provide support. However, that does not prevent the contract from containing other statements from going further than that, providing that the parent agrees to sign up. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is right when he says that our arguments on amendments Nos. 58 and 47 are fundamentally the same. I am not convinced that we need to take up the Committee's time by repeating the arguments surrounding amendment No. 59. I welcome his attempt to speed up our proceedings, even if he does not accept my arguments.

I wish to address his point on Outreach. There is no doubt that that provision is valuable but, essentially, parenting contracts and orders are directed at parents. Providing diversionary activities could be agreed to without the necessity for attachments. There is no problem with that. Outreach would be valuable in other work with children and young people. I do not see the need to amend the clause as the hon. Gentleman proposes in order to allow people to do the kind of good work that he is talking about. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those amendments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for speaking to amendments Nos. 58 and 59 again. There is no point in us rehearsing the same arguments that

we had on the earlier clause. As for amendment No. 57, which is the substantial issue, again I am grateful to him for putting on record that there is nothing in the Bill that the Government intend to be too restrictive.

I still feel it would be better to have a wider wording to make that absolutely clear, and I hope that the Minister will continue to keep that under review because we would be quite happy if the Government were to introduce their own amendment at a later stage, on Report or in another place, that made the wording

''A parenting contract is a document which contains''

(a) and (b) absolutely clear. It would appear, but for what the Minister has just said, that the Government have in mind that it would contain only (a) and (b), and nothing else. The Minister has now helpfully put on record that it could contain other things as well, but it would be helpful to have that made clear in the Bill. I am not going to pursue that today as we have made our point, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25 - Parenting orders in respect of criminal conduct and anti-social behaviour

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 60, in

clause 25, page 22, line 17, leave out 'twelve months' and insert 'two years'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 61, in

clause 25, page 22, line 20, leave out 'three months' and insert 'twelve months'.

Amendment No. 62, in

clause 25, page 22, line 20, leave out

'and not more than once in any week'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Again, I can be brief because, as with amendments Nos. 58 and 59, amendments Nos. 61 and 62 are a repeat of counterpart amendments to an earlier clause about time limits. The judgment call we would make is two years not 12 months, and 12 months not three months. I am hoping that the Government will accept again an amendment like the one they accepted before lunch removing the words

''and not more than once in any week''.

I hope that the Minister knows what we are getting at. We want to take out those words and I am hoping that we will have a similar triumph. The Opposition must be allowed such small triumphs occasionally. If the Minister does accept that, I will beg to move amendment No. 62 when we come to the relevant point, as your colleague in the Chair allowed me to do this morning, Mr. Cran. I will wait to hear whether we are going to be equally lucky with this counterpart amendment.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise to echo our support for amendment

No. 62 for exactly the same reasons that we supported the similar amendment this morning.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 are like amendments Nos. 49 and 50 that we discussed earlier. As I said earlier, we believe that 12 months is an adequate maximum for parents to be under an order and that 3 months is adequate for a parenting course. If they require additional parenting support, we would prefer to see parents opting for that on a voluntary basis. We believe that that would be more effective than parents being required to undergo orders and programmes for a much longer period.

Amendment No. 62 is intended to allow more flexibility in the delivery of parenting programmes by removing the one session per week restriction. We recognise that change in this area, and I am happy to accept that amendment, as I was happy to accept the earlier amendment in relation to the education situation.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are delighted that the Government are going to accept the same sort of amendment that we tabled before, so I shall withdraw the lead amendment. Although we do not entirely agree with the Minister as he knows and we hope that he will keep the time limit under review, there is no point rehearsing the same argument we had this morning about those. Having withdrawn the lead amendment, I would like to press amendment No. 62. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 62, in

clause 25, page 22, line 20, leave out

'and not more than once in any week'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Parenting orders: appeals

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Before we leave this part of the Bill altogether, I want to raise some points that might be relevant to the matters dealt with in appeals. I could have raised them under clause 26 or clause 23, but I have chosen to do so now. I hope that I am in order because these matters could come up under appeal.

I hope that the Government recognise that there is constant pressure on welfare reports to courts. That could come up under clause 26, as I said, but it could also come up under appeals. Everyone who has ever been involved in the justice system for criminal law or family law cases knows that there is a huge shortage of expert reporters to write reports to courts. I hope that the Government will take it from us that we will watch them to check that the necessary resources are in place.

I have been involved in many debates on such matters with the Minister's colleagues. I remember that when the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree

(Jane Kennedy) was in the Lord Chancellor's Department in the previous Parliament and I was shadowing her, we had many debates on the welfare service that the Government introduced, called the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Guardians ad litem were very much against that and saw various problems. People who had been experienced guardians ad litem were resigning left, right and centre because of the threat of CAFCASS. I should like some reassurance from the Minister, on the record, that the Government are aware of the difficulty of getting enough welfare report writers and that they will keep that under review.

The Government have put in clause 23 a reference to persons who are not individuals, by which they mean local authorities in relation to children in care. Whether we are discussing appeals or original hearings, there is always a concern that a lot of disruptive children will end up in care, for various reasons. We all understand that and have seen it in our constituency surgery work. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that, allied to the shortage of welfare report writers to courts, there are serious issues connected with children who end up in local authority care. It might, perhaps, be inappropriate to have a parenting order because there is not a parent with care of the child. I hope that the Government will not forget, at any stage, the issues that relate to children in care. We have all seen some of the horrendous family situations involving such children.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman has made his points and put them on the record. I shall not pretend that I have the expertise to tell him to what degree there might be a deficiency of writers, as he alleges. His point is on the record and he will be able to refer back to it if the situation is as he claims.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 2 - Powers of Head Teachers

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We now return, perhaps for the first time this afternoon, to an issue of huge substance, although I am not seeking to minimise the importance of the Government accepting an Opposition amendment. New clause 2 represents something that is at the core of my party's policies.

I shall refer to one particular passage:

''Let's give heads more power over discipline in the classroom. We will abolish the costly and bureaucratic appeals panels that second-guess heads and governors''.

That is a policy commitment from the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), speaking to our party conference last autumn.

Whenever we discuss the abolition of appeals panels, Government Members, and perhaps Liberal Democrat Members, say that the panels were created when the Conservative party was in government. When the appeals panel process was instituted in legislation, however, nobody in our party anticipated that the Government would mess about with the national lottery in the way in which they have, which they promised never to do when they were in opposition. Indeed, when they were in opposition, they tabled amendments to the national lottery legislation saying that no Government should ever do what they have done. They have messed about with the national lottery to allow the Community Fund to provide lottery funds to an individual whose raison d'être is working with parents to use appeals panels to overturn the decisions of heads.

The matter came to a head because the head of a Surrey school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), which is not far from my constituency, decided that because of death threats issued repeatedly over the phone to a particular teacher, who, if I remember correctly, happened to be the head of PE, some children should be excluded from the extremely good secondary school, which I know well. I also happen to know the chairman of governors, who is a former senior county councillor.

The governing body backed the head in that exclusion but the appeals panel overturned it. Why did the appeals panel overturn it? It overturned it because that individual, whose raison d'être is to work with parents who are disgruntled about exclusion decisions, went along to the hearing to try to persuade the people on the panel to overturn the view of the head and the governing body. Conservative Members consider that to be a travesty. It was a gross misuse of the national lottery.

The national lottery was supposed to be about good causes. It beggars belief that the people in the Community Fund can think it appropriate to give lottery money to that individual, whose contribution to society is to try to undermine heads and governing bodies. I wish that I had the people on the Community Fund in front of me, so that I could cross-examine them, which I used to do when I was a barrister in court, on exactly what they think they are playing at, not with taxpayers' money but with lottery money, which is the people's money. Such decisions contradict the idea that the Community Fund is about good causes.

I do not blame the Minister for the Community Fund's daft decisions but I blame the Government for

messing about with the original idea of the national lottery. Under the rules of the national lottery as John Major designed it and the Conservative Government set it up, that sort of travesty could not have happened and money could not have been given to that individual. I cannot remember his name because my anger has driven it from my mind; I wish that I could remember it because I would put it on the record.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? We all sympathise with head teachers, given the situations in which they find themselves. If I were a head teacher and new clause 2 were added to the Bill, would it mean that there was no right of appeal against any decision that I made? For example, I could decide permanently to exclude a child who had shouted out in class for the first time. Would there be guidelines on the sort of behaviour that merited permanent exclusion?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

That is a helpful contribution—I always find the hon. Gentleman's contributions helpful. He is entitled to ask that question, to which the answer is no. We would limit appeals to cases where it is alleged that there has been an abuse of process. If there were apparently an abusive misuse by the head and the governing body, it could be attacked as an abuse of process. We do not want appeals panels to be misused. I understand from remarks by Department for Education and Skills Ministers—I do not know whether the Minister will enlighten us on this when he responds—that they will keep appeals panels under review. At some stage, we may see Government legislation that hems in appeals panels, and they may try to stop the malicious activities of that lottery-funded individual.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I have always shared a passion for dealing with antisocial behaviour of various kinds. He knows that Conservative Members are not trying to drive a coach and horses through the Bill because we want to use it where it can be helpful.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will give way after I have completed my response to the hon. Member for Gedling. Given that the legislation deals with exclusions and truancy, we want to take the opportunity to do some of the Government's work for them. We want to get rid of the misuse of appeals panels.

The Government may say that they cannot possibly accept new clause 2 in its current form but that they will examine the issue given the national publicity. The case in Epsom led the news for several days running. People were trying to find out whether the decision was going to be upheld or overturned. In the end, the children were found new schools. The local education authority had to step in but there was a ridiculous situation. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), went on television and said that the Government would not allow the decision to be upheld. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), had to admit that what he said on television was

wrong because the Government did not have the power to do it.

To conclude my response to the hon. Member for Gedling, it struck us that this is a good opportunity to try to highlight a big issue and to deal with it. I would be very happy if the Minister were to say that he cannot accept new clause 2 but that he will use the Bill to try to deal with the way in which appeals panels have become a scandal.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I have been studying the new clause and—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—there would still be appeals through the courts. That would be ludicrous because head teachers would be tied up in the legal process if there were an appeal against an exclusion. If things were to go to court, public money would also be involved. I do not see how the new clause could work.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady would be right if we were saying that there should be unrestricted appeals in the courts. At the moment, if somebody challenges an exclusion decision before an appeals panel, the challenge is on the merits of the case. The parents, who are sometimes backed by the man funded by the lottery, say that their child should not have been excluded, or that the exclusion should have been temporary rather than permanent. The battle is therefore on the merits of the case. We are saying that the legislation should cover a gross abuse of process.

If a head teacher or governing body took leave of their senses—hopefully, no head or governing body ever will—and did something grossly improper, there has to be a fall-back, which is why the new clause is worded in that way. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), the shadow schools Minister, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, the shadow Secretary of State. We are trying to stop the way in which appeals panels have been used.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

My hon. Friend would be grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). Can he help her and the Committee by confirming that as matters stand every case has to go to an appeals tribunal, where it is considered as a question of fact? She looks puzzled. She has not seen the words

''as a matter of law'',

which would reduce the scope for appeals; it would restrict appeals to those brought as a matter of law. At the moment, as a matter of fact, every single case goes to an appeals tribunal. I thought that she was going to support the new clause.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he, like me, has a number of years' experience practising as a barrister in the courts.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Let me respond to the helpful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). He and I are well aware that if the ground of appeal is restricted to cases in which there has been an abuse of process, there will not be many appeals, which deals with the point about

public funds. It would have been possible as a matter of parliamentary procedure for us to table a new clause that said, ''No appeals on anything'', but it would have been struck down as being contrary to human rights legislation, or someone would have found some fault with it. If appeals are restricted to cases in which there has been an abuse of process, the number of appeals will be cut.

We do not want all exclusions to be challenged on their merits. What happened at the school in Epsom has happened in schools throughout the country

but the Epsom case received much publicity. The authority and decision making of governing bodies is being undermined. The Epsom case received so much coverage. The number of letters to the national press and people ringing radio and television programmes confirmed that the vast majority of the British public wanted to know why, when the head teacher and governing body had excluded pupils who had made death threats against a member of staff and repeated, anonymous telephone calls, their authority was undermined because an appeals panel forced the head and the governing body to take those pupils back.

I remember the interviews with the teacher against whom the death threats had been made. He was devastated. He was a senior teacher with around 20 years' experience. Other parents said in interviews what a good teacher he was and that they needed to support good teachers.

I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, but I do not want her to misunderstand the intention of our new clause. We want to restrict severely the number of appeals and to stop the undermining of heads' and governing bodies' authority that is happening at the moment.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

What the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere in a previous intervention said was that the new clause would create more work for lawyers because the matter would go through the court system. However, he has not responded to my point. Although he said that the number of appeals would be restricted, there would be some appeals through the court system and that would tie up head teachers in the courts.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady simply does not understand. May I suggest that after this debate she talks to some of her hon. Friends, particularly the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who resigned and her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate who had to appear on television to discuss the matter. We are discussing a restricted group of people because only a tiny number might be able to allege abuse of process. If she shows the new clause to her right hon. and hon. Friends, I am sure that they will explain to her that there must be minimal grounds for appeal. People will not be tied up in court. We are trying to avoid so many exclusion decisions going to appeals panels and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, time after time—

especially when the lottery-funded man is involved—the original decision to exclude is overturned. Members on both sides of the Committee want to bolster the authority of heads and governing bodies when dealing with disruptive pupils. We cannot do that with the appeal panel system as it is. The new clause is a serious and genuine attempt to correct that abuse, which is why we tabled it. I hope that I have given the Committee an indication of how strongly we feel about this.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I oppose the new clause, but not because I do not accept some of the sentiments that have been expressed. I accept that there have been some appalling cases in which a school's discipline has been undermined. However, the new clause is an over-reaction in the opposite direction that could cause harm to others. The fact that we have had appeal panels apparently making decisions that are unacceptable to the majority of the public is not a case for abolishing the system. It is a case for reforming the system and getting the guidelines and processes right, and I know that the Government have made some progress with reforming appeal panels. I want to put on record that I oppose this draconian measure because it would remove fundamental rights, but I accept that reform is necessary so that appeal panels work well. It is easy to be lulled to either extreme. We must think about the policies of inclusion and the pressure on schools to keep as many pupils as possible. That has led to difficulties for some schools, and some parents have felt that their children's interests were being neglected. The reforms that are being introduced to provide more emphasis on the overall interest of schools should be sufficient. I think that the appeal panels will need to be monitored and it is for the Department for Education and Skills to get that right.

I oppose the draconian approach because, having been the chairman of an education authority, I know of one school—it was not in my constituency—that was responsible for three quarters of the exclusions of the whole education authority. It raised a few eyebrows that one school was responsible for so many exclusions. It had nothing to do with the school's location or the nature of its pupils, and it was absolutely vital that there were appeal panels and some support for parents when the pendulum swung too far the other way.

In some cases exclusions are not in the best interests of pupils. Those cases may be in the minority and the headline cases that we hear about may be rather more widespread than I would have thought, but the new clause is totally wrong. It takes away fundamental principles without focusing on the real issue of why we need a proper appeals process. We want to establish the best possible outcome for pupils. That may well be an alternative form of education, but in some cases it may be right to have a separate programme for a particular child, even if that is a little harder for the school. The new clause would force somebody out of the system without an appeal. That must be wrong.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

As part of the background to the new clause, the hon. Lady heard my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath lay out how the matter came to public attention. Money from the national lottery via the communities fund was provided to an organisation that was assisting parents to appeal. She heard very clearly that the Conservatives oppose lottery players' money being given to an organisation for that purpose. Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of that money being used in that way or are they against it?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I do not feel that I have to respond to that challenge.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

What a giveaway—another no policy.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I do not make judgments on the hoof. I consider things carefully—[Interruption.] I do not have the details of that use of lottery money in front of me. I have heard other examples that I would regard as misuse of lottery money, but I do not know the details of the case in question and I will not comment on something about which I do not know the full details. There are certainly examples of vulnerable people needing to be supported in appeals situations. Such circumstances do exist, but I am not necessarily talking about the case in question.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It would be a great shame if we did not get on the record the extremely wise comment of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, who said to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) that it was a change of policy for the Liberal Democrats to say that they never made policy on the hoof.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

That comment is beneath contempt and I shall treat it as such. I am sure that all parties have their policy processes and nobody could accuse the Liberal Democrats of not spending many hours in the policy-making process. Now that I have been led on to the subject, I recall that a newspaper commented at our last conference—[Interruption.]

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. We have had our fun and we should return to what we are supposed to be discussing. I look to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole to do that now.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

But of course, Mr. Cran. Perhaps I am like a schoolchild getting led astray.

To return to the point, the new clause is totally wrong. The jibes do not make the new clause any better. It undermines fundamental rights that need to be protected.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady who, I am sure, was an estimable chairman of an education authority, I have to disagree about the importance that she attaches to discipline—or rather, about her estimation of the problem of discipline. She said that there was a problem with discipline in one or two schools. The problem of discipline is much wider than that and has been so for many years. The problem has developed over that time. We have talked about how we can improve standards in secondary education. The Minister smiles, but I believe that it is a priority of the present Government, and rightly so, to

improve standards in secondary education because it is recognised that in some schools those standards are falling behind.

My personal opinion, for the benefit of the Committee, is that one of the most important steps that we can take towards improving standards in secondary education is to improve discipline. That is a particular problem in inner-city schools, which is where we especially want to improve standards. I do not think that we should have any illusions about the very difficult task of heads and teachers in inner-city and many other schools, and about the very bad effect that ill-discipline has on the education of children.

It may be, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has said, that those children are vulnerable; but we have also to think about the other children who are behaving themselves and want to get on with their lessons, and the teachers who have to teach them.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

What I referred to was the reform of the appeal panels, which requires them to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against the interests of all other members of the school. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a good, fundamental change. I am not taking on his point entirely, but just suggesting that because something has been fundamentally wrong, we do not have to swing the pendulum to an extreme. We can settle for a better position that is not extreme.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I was coming to that point, but I think that the hon. Lady would be hard put to disagree with my analysis of the serious nature of the discipline problem and the steps that need to be taken to deal with it. She can contradict me if she wants, but I believe that a lack of discipline is one of the biggest problems today in our secondary education system and that we should attach great importance to it.

Coming to the point that the hon. Lady made, the principle from which I start is to trust the judgment of the heads and teachers. Even if the reform that she has suggested was made, it would still—I am with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes on this—involve the proposal that every single exclusion case could go before an appeal panel to be decided. The test that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole described of balancing the interests of one against the other would have to be undergone. All the time of head teachers would be taken up in such a process.

I have to say that I support heads and teachers and that I want to do everything that I can to bolster their authority. That is in the real interests of the children today who are losing out. Let us not be complacent about that. There are many children losing out in secondary education—failing to fulfil their potential—because of the lack of discipline in classes and the demoralising effect that that understandably has on teachers. Whatever we can do to help teachers, I am game for doing it.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

A couple of things are clear from the responses to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and the way in which the proposal has been presented. One is that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is very angry. The other is that he is

proposing a draconian measure. The short answer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling asked is no. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants to deny parents any right of appeal in the circumstances that he spelled out. The Government are committed to retaining the right for parents of permanently excluded pupils to appeal to an independent appeal panel. The hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest—perhaps I picked him up wrongly—that everyone has to go to an appeal. Everyone does not have to go to an appeal, but everyone has a right to do so. He effectively said that that should not be the case and that people should have no right to go to appeal except on a point of law, a point of process.

The appeal has been in legislation since 1987. It is in the interests of national justice and complies with the Human Rights Act 1998, to which I know the Conservative party is so opposed. It is an established safeguard for pupils and parents. Exclusion must be an option that is open to head teachers but, equally, it is a serious matter and parents must be able to appeal. Abolishing appeal panels would simply mean that many more cases ended up in court unless, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath clearly proposes, people are completely denied any appeal on merit. It is clear that that is what he is saying: no appeal against exclusion on the merits of the decision taken.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister put himself in the position of a head teacher who has taken a decision to exclude a pupil for a very good reason that was carefully thought out and involved the necessary discussion with the other members of his staff, who is then forced by an external body to reinstate that pupil? Would that not totally undermine the credibility of that head, and his or her ability to insist ever again on any level of discipline in the school? As we all know, pupils will seek to exploit that weakness.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Potentially it could. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am aware from comments made by Liberal Democrat Members during this debate, such as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, that they, unlike Conservative Members, have kept themselves abreast of some of the changes that we have made. I know how busy shadow Home Office spokespeople must be, and perhaps they have not been able to do that. We have made considerable changes that mean that appeal panels, even where they found that the exclusion was not justified, do not have to send the pupil back to the school and thereby undermine the head teacher. We have made considerable changes to improve the situation.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) asks me if I can put myself in the position of a head. Yes, I can. Can he not put himself in the position of parents who believe that their child has been permanently excluded from a school unfairly with no right of appeal whatever to anyone in any circumstances? That is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I mentioned in my opening remarks that I discussed those matters with my hon. Friends the Member for Ashford and for Altrincham and Sale, West and we are aware of the changes. We do not think that the Government's changes have gone far enough. We ought to return to the situation that existed when the Minister and I were at school. The situation then was that decisions were made by heads and governing bodies, and that was it. In those days, we did not have huge complaints about breaches of people's human rights because of the respect that the hon. Member for Gedling was bemoaning the lack of this morning. People understood that head teachers and governing bodies had authority.

If one has to choose between supporting the head and the governing body, and supporting parents who might be aggressively supporting their child however badly the child has behaved, I would prefer to give the right to the head and the governing body because they should be respected.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says he intends to do, but I do not think that one should go about it in the way that he intends, by completely denying parents any right of appeal. The right approach is to reform appeals panels as we did in January this year, when new exclusion regulations made four significant changes to the composition of appeals panels and the way in which they work.

First, appeals panels now include a serving or retired head teacher—a person who can put themself in exactly the position that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked me to imagine myself in, and who can understand the consequences of the decisions for head teachers. The panels also include a school governor and a lay member. People who understand the realities of dealing with school discipline will from now on play the major part in the panels.

Secondly, the panel will have to balance the interests of the excluded pupil against those of the school community as a whole. Thirdly, the panel will not be able to overturn exclusions solely on technicalities. If a clever individual wants to go around advising parents how they can do such things, he can, but the panel will not be required to base a decision on such technicalities from now on. It will be able to consider the merits of the case, balance the interests of the individual against the school community and it will not be in a position where it can be tripped up by technicalities.

Fourthly, the panels will be able to conclude that a pupil should not have been excluded without automatically having to order that pupil's return to the school. Even if an exclusion was not fully justified, relationships may have broken down to such an extent that it is in no one's interest for the pupil to return to the school. The new composition of appeals panels means that members are in closer touch with contemporary classroom conditions. Additionally, the new rules for panels strike a better balance between the interests of individual pupils and those of the school community as a whole.

Mark Francois (Conservative, Rayleigh)

May I offer two brief points? First, I am sure that the Minister, like all of us, knows head teachers in his own constituency. Does he agree that head teachers generally are very responsible individuals and that no head teacher would lightly or in a fit of pique take a decision permanently to exclude a pupil? They think extremely carefully before they make such a recommendation: it is a very serious decision, and head teachers treat it appropriately.

Secondly, even if a head teacher were to act in an arbitrary manner in respect of a particular pupil, they would still need the support of their school governors for the decision to stand firm. Those two important factors must be taken into account when considering the serious arguments for the new clause.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Overwhelmingly, that will be the case. In the vast majority of situations, a head teacher acting alone or with the support of governors will not take an irrational or stupid decision.

Does the hon. Gentleman have any evidence that head teachers want to be put in a position in which there is absolutely no second guessing of a decision that they have taken? That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. They know that they are dealing with very serious situations. Now that the changes have been made, head teachers are not opposed to having appropriate people review their decision and, in the overwhelming majority of cases, confirm that they were right to take it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The answer to the Minister's question is yes. Obviously, we did not table the new clause without doing some research into the matter. In particular, I have in my constituency several head teachers of schools who are involved with the secondary heads organisations. Without doubt, there is a feeling that the Government's changes, which were welcome, did not go far enough, although I accept that not every head in the country agrees with that.

None the less, there is a strong feeling that head teachers and governing bodies are still at risk from this lottery-funded individual. They are still looking over their shoulder in case this gentleman, who has already caused one huge controversy and who obviously enjoyed the publicity and being on all the national television news programmes, gets involved again in other Surrey schools. Therefore, when the Minister challenges us to say whether heads want this further safeguarding of their position, the answer is yes.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

As the hon. Gentleman makes that assertion, I cannot say that he does not know a head who does not feel that way. However, we have issued new guidance in addition to the new regulations. It re-emphasises that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would not expect an appeals panel to direct the reinstatement of a pupil if there had been serious or actual threatened violence towards another pupil or a member of staff. The same applies in cases of selling drugs, sexual abuse or persistent disruptive behaviour. That is the way to deal with the matter.

The new clause would replace the appeal to an independent panel with an appeal to a magistrates court on a point of law. My other problem with the new clause is that the magistrates court does not hear

appeals on a point of law, as it is generally composed of lay magistrates. Such appeals normally go to the High Court, which can already hear applications for judicial review arising from the decisions of an independent panel.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

Does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding all the changes, which I believe were made for the right reasons, there will still be a need to monitor the outcomes of appeals? There may well be a need for further changes. Supporting that route does not mean that one does not care about the problem or about discipline in schools.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

What the hon. Lady says is absolutely correct. I am sure that the Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department for Education and Skills will continue to monitor the way in which the powers are used and make other changes if and when necessary.

As I have said, I do not think that it would be appropriate to make such appeals lie with a magistrates court. I do not think that those courts are equipped to hear them. The independent appeals panels are free, whereas the High Court would involve costs for parents and so deny access to appeals to those without the means to use the law.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I think that the Minister may have jumped a point in his notes. He has just been pointing out that we have proposed magistrates courts, but he is now saying that the High Court—which he said that we could have proposed but have not—would incur costs. The reason why we proposed the magistrates court was so that the costs would be much smaller. Lay magistrates have a legally qualified clerk and stipendiary magistrates have a knowledge of the law.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am aware of that, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is only putting that idea forward to try to cover the draconian nature of his proposal. He practises law and knows better than I that magistrates courts are not really equipped to deal with matters of law. He is trying to deny access to any appeal whatever on points of merit. He will allow appeals on matters of law but does not want them to go to the High Court, which is equipped to deal with them. He wants to cover himself by sending them to the magistrates court where a lay magistrate will have to attempt to deal with matters of law. In my opinion, the new clause is not only draconian and unjustified, but a mess, too.

We cannot totally ignore the issue of cost. If people feel that they need support to go to an appeals panel, they would certainly feel the need for support—and the need to pay for it—if they had to go to a court, whether a magistrates court, a Crown court or the High Court. I therefore appeal to the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion. If he is not prepared to do so, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has obviously enjoyed accusing us of being draconian. He normally suggests that I enjoy accusing him of that, so the roles have been reversed for a few minutes this afternoon. On this occasion he has used the word ''draconian'' against the Opposition as many times as I have used it against him

in the past. The new clause is not draconian. We have built in a safeguard, but an inexpensive one.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, with his considerable experience in the courts, pointed out from a sedentary position when the Minister was coming towards the end of his remarks, magistrates courts actually deal with points of law every single day, because they have a legally qualified clerk. Although the Minister is not a lawyer, I would have hoped that, as a Home Office Minister, he knew that. Perhaps he needs to take advice from some justices' clerks, or from some of his officials who deal with justices' clerks, to understand that magistrates courts deal with points of law every day. They are also used to dealing with matters quickly, cheaply and efficiently, without needing huge rafts of extra legal advice.

Having just corrected the Minister on that one significant point, I shall deal once again with some of the arguments on the merits of the case. We feel strongly that the Government's reforms do not go far enough. We accept that the changes in the arrangements for appeals panels are an improvement, but they have not dealt with the problem that head teachers and governors now have. Before they exclude a pupil, however disruptive, they have to look over their shoulder and wonder whether an appeals panel will overturn their decision. That may mean that some children who ought to be excluded end up not being excluded precisely because the governing body is worried about an appeals panel potentially overturning their decision. We think that the new clause would be a significant improvement in the law.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me why he supported clause 21, which gives a universal right of appeal against parenting orders, but is trying to restrict the right of appeal in respect of permanently excluded pupils? The two views do not seem to sit very well together.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do so because of the national scandal that appeals panels became because of all the national news stories. It is not, as the Minister suggests, just because I am so angry. I am angry about the opportunity that an individual has taken to misuse lottery funding, but I want to make a serious improvement to the law. We are not going to agree. I want to put the new clause to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 12.

Clause 29 - Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 155, in

clause 29, page 23, line 32, leave out

'intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed'

and insert 'intimidated or harassed'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 156, in

clause 29, page 23, line 33, leave out 'presence or'.

Amendment No. 160, in

clause 29, page 23, line 42, leave out 'presence or'.

Amendment No. 161, in

clause 29, page 23, line 43, leave out

', or is likely to result,'.

Amendment No. 162, in

clause 29, page 23, line 44, leave out

'intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed'

and insert 'intimidated or harassed'.

Amendment No. 167, in

clause 29, page 24, line 33, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment No. 168, in

clause 29, page 24, line 33, leave out 'presence or'.

Amendment No. 169, in

clause 29, page 24, line 34, leave out 'presence or'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The clause contains some of the most draconian elements of the Bill and, unfortunately, seems to undermine some of the good work that the Government have done in supporting young people. After all, the Government set up the children and young people's unit and have supported several other initiatives. They deserve credit for taking the steps that they have. They had, until recently, the first ever Youth Minister. I hope that there will be a replacement as soon as possible—particularly because at the moment I have no one to shadow.

The amendments relate to the overall powers that are being given to the police. The clause has many possibilities in it. One can read it in numerous ways and come up with something that seems quite reasonable and something that seems outrageous, depending on which collection of ors and ands are stuck together.

For the Committee's sake, I will demonstrate. Most of us would be entirely happy that the police might be able to disperse a group when:

''any members of the public have been intimidated . . . as a result of the . . . behaviour of groups of two or more persons''

in a locality. None of us feel that there is anything particularly wrong with the idea of the police dispersing people whose behaviour is intimidating others.

However, the paragraph could also be read as referring to a situation in which

''any members of the public have been . . . alarmed . . . as a result of the presence . . . of groups of two or more persons''.

There are probably many circumstances in which people get alarmed by somebody's presence. To be flippant, I am sure that in certain Conservative marginal seats, they would get very alarmed by groups of two or more Liberal Democrat canvassers appearing on the street corner, but in all seriousness—[Interruption.] I knew that that was a dangerous thing to say. Hon. Members will not shut up now; they will chunter on for the next few minutes.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Amendment No. 155 would omit the words ''alarmed or distressed'' from the Bill. Is it the hon. Gentleman's intention to allow people who cause alarm or distress to others to remain on the streets? Why does he want to remove those words? They are well known and are included in antisocial behaviour orders, as well as the Public Order Act 1986. Why does he want to leave people on the streets who cause alarm and distress?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We want to remove those words because there is a significant difference between people being alarmed by someone and being intimidated or harassed by that person. I live in a quiet, small town called Much Wenlock in my constituency which has, to all intents and purposes, zero crime. Nowhere actually has zero crime, but it is as low as anywhere in the country. Only 1,500 people live there and kids gather on the bench in the town centre and on street corners. Elderly residents have asked me what I am going to do about those kids gathering on that bench. They do not actually do anything or even say anything to the elderly ladies concerned. They do not swear at them and so on, but those elderly ladies feel alarmed by the mere presence of those kids. I have told them that those kids have exactly the same right to be in that locality as they have to stand and chat to each other.

This part of the Bill is clearly aimed primarily at young people and the problem is that they are being labelled as the sort of people who must not gather on street corners, but if a group of pensioners has a chat outside the post office after collecting their pensions, that is fine.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

The hon. Gentleman wants to omit the word ''presence'', so why does he want to omit the words ''alarmed or distressed? Those words are well known to the law. Why does he want to leave such people out on the streets when there is a significant problem of antisocial behaviour in the locality?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I want to increase the threshold level before the decision is taken. The words ''intimidated'' and ''harassed'' are a more significant test threshold than ''alarmed'' and ''distressed''. That is my primary reason. The threshold is being set too low and the message that that sends to young people is that the Government think that young people are a problem. I realise that the Government have done other things to contradict that—I have already acknowledged that—but ''alarmed or distressed'' are unhelpful words when young people are concerned and may make them feel that society does not want them to belong to it.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (1) which states:

''where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing''

this or that. The relevant officer is a superintendent or above and he will make the judgment about an area with a history of antisocial behaviour. Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe that a relevant officer will decide on dispersal because a group of old people drawing their pensions in a post office are put off by a group of youngsters outside? The decision will be made carefully, based on reasonable grounds. The hon. Gentleman is taking the words out of context.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from and she is right about the officer who decides whether to use the power, but a constable can then use that power on reasonable grounds. We shall come to clauses under which the constable does not have to make a record or issue a written notice; once the power is in place, he can use it 24 hours a day. I have no doubt that senior officers will be careful about how they use the provision, but in the likely areas where a senior officer might want to make use of the powers, ''intimidated'' or ''harassed'' will easily fit. There is no need for ''alarmed'' or ''distressed''. It is the behaviour of such people, not their presence, that is critical. It is very serious to say that someone's presence is the reason that one would want to see them moved on. The right to free assembly and the like immediately spring to mind.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Apart from the fact that it has been well stated that the words are well known in law, would the hon. Gentleman accept that the presence of a group of young people hanging around a cash point at night can alarm and distress people, and that that should be addressed?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If those young people are not committing an offence of harassment or intimidation, no, I do not think that they should be moved on. That is what it comes down to. If they are causing intimidation to people by their behaviour next to that cash point, the police would have grounds to move them on, and we would be happy to see such a provision go through. We are trying to remove the words ''alarmed'' and ''distressed'' in relation to the presence of somebody.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I cited that example because it is a particularly serious issue in one of the main streets in Cleethorpes. It is the presence—the loitering—that is causing distress to many of my residents who will not go near that cash point. Surely those people who are alarmed and distressed have rights, and we should be doing something about that, which is why the issue of dispersal is being considered.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We have a fundamental disagreement. If someone is just being somewhere and their actions are not being taken into account but just their presence, that is a very serious step to take. Many of my residents are seriously distressed by the presence of lots of heavy lorries driving past their houses, but we would not stop those lorries if they were travelling on major routes that we would expect them to use.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I seek clarification of what the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is proposing. He said, ''where they are causing intimidation''. Does he suggest that people ought not to be moved on if they are causing intimidation or if they are actually intimidating people? The two concepts can be very different. I do not understand how he can differentiate between causing intimidation and causing alarm and distress. What exactly does he think that he is proposing?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

As I said, I am trying to raise the threshold. My reading of the provision is that the threshold of ''intimidated'' and ''harassed'' is higher than the words ''alarmed'' and ''distressed''. I am trying to raise the threshold so that such decisions will not be taken lightly by a senior officer or by a constable—we shall come later to the same set of words used in relation to a constable.

I have discussed the removal of the words ''alarmed'' and ''distressed'' and the removal of the words ''presence of''. If we consider amendment No. 161, which refers to clause 29(3), we again find the idea that someone can be given a sanction—being told one cannot return to an area is a sanction—that is delivered not by the courts, but by a constable on the ground. A senior officer can put that in place if the presence or behaviour

''has resulted, or is likely to result''

in someone being

''intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed''.

I do not think that any senior officer will take that step unless those problems are occurring on a daily basis—not that they are likely to occur. I find it difficult to understand why the Government need to include the words

''or is likely to result''.

We are again, in effect, deciding what is in someone's mind. That moves us down the slippery slope of deciding someone's intent before they have actually done anything that is, to most people's minds, wrong.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Speaking from memory, I believe a police officer can arrest someone and charge them with an offence if their behaviour is such that it causes or is likely to cause a breach of the peace. However, I gloss over that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to something that might happen on a single occasion. Has he read clause 29(1)(b)? It states that such authorisations can be made if

''anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality.''

If he read the Bill first, it might assist him.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is exactly the point that I was making. A senior officer will only take action in circumstances where he could easily think that the public have been intimidated or harassed, and it is the person's behaviour rather than their presence that has caused that. As for the test for officers and constables, they are likely to use such powers where a problem is

happening, not where one is likely to happen. To remove a person from an area for 24 hours on the grounds that a constable thinks that their presence might possibly alarm someone is draconian. That previous legislation has contained similar measures is not necessarily a reason to continue to make the same mistakes.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that he lives in leafy Much Wenlock, which is not far from my constituency, so I am sure that he has visited some of the estates in my constituency that suffer from major problems of design and layout. There, it is quite reasonable that senior officers should take a view relative to an entire locality on whether someone's presence is likely to cause alarm. The design of the estates means that a person can stand right outside someone's window and cause alarm; they can do that in various locations around the estate, and they will do so.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, but he is still saying that someone who is technically breaking no law, standing on a public footpath, could be moved on. If there is only one such person, the measure will not apply to them anyway. One person can stand outside someone's window and continue to harass and intimidate them and the measure will not help to stop that. It will only help if there are two or more persons doing it.

David Wright (Labour, Telford)

The hon. Gentleman is wriggling.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I realise that there are problems. We do not oppose the clause in its entirety, but we are trying to raise the thresholds necessary to deal with the problem and remove the worst component of the measure—that someone can be sanctioned on the grounds of what they might possibly do, not what they are actually doing. If such provision does occur in law, it is extremely rare and it is a very slippery slope to go down.

If amendment No. 167 were accepted—although I can see that I am up against a brick wall here—amendments No. 168 and 169 would be completely unnecessary. They amendments would remove words from clause 29(7), which says that a group of people can be dispersed because ''one or more'' of them are behaving in the way described—or are believed to be behaving in such a way. The problem is that that will be unnecessary if the Government get their way. The officer could always say, ''Actually, I believed that they were all going to do such and such,'' and if the Government get their way the officer will have a route around the issue without needing subsection (7).

People will be penalised because somebody in their group is behaving unacceptably. Because a couple of members of a group of young people, most of whom are behaving acceptably, are acting unacceptably, the sanction of not returning to the area for 24 hours can be imposed on the entire group. Once again, people are being penalised for the action or behaviour of others.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Does not that principle already operate in relation to, for example, a demonstration, where the police have rights of dispersal for the greater

good of the local community? I cannot see the difference.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

There is a difference: a demonstration is planned, even if it is not permitted. If violence erupts at a demonstration, it is entirely reasonable that the demonstration be brought to an end. Clause 29 would apply to a group of young people playing football on the local recreation ground, a couple of whom are acting in a way that is causing alarm, distress or intimidation to other people who might want to use that public space. In those circumstances, in effect, the clause says that a police officer can send the whole lot packing.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the local recreation ground is a place where antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem and that it will therefore be a ''relevant locality''? His example is meaningless.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Yes, I can think of small recreation grounds where antisocial behaviour is a significant problem, as can Labour Members, but I could have given various examples of which that is only one.

In conclusion, we are trying to raise the threshold of the test that the senior officer and the constable on the ground have to apply. We want the test to be applied to actual behaviour, not to a perception of what might happen. We do not want everyone in a group to be penalised for the behaviour of one or two of its members.

Laura Moffatt (Labour, Crawley)

The hon. Gentleman says that the measures are draconian. Community safety partnerships are examining this matter and would like to take action in consultation with the community. The amendments would prevent that work from advancing and would hugely disadvantage local people.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Our amendments would not prevent such action because the substantive part of the clause would remain.

We are raising an important threshold. My view on Bills is that we must always apply the test that at some point in the future someone might use the powers they contain unreasonably. I know that there is a test for the power of dispersal, but that test must always be applied. I do not want powers that could be abused to enter the law. The powers are wide-ranging and might be used in many circumstances in which the Government do not necessarily intend them to be used. I suspect that the powers will probably not be used in such circumstances, but my suspicion is not a sufficient reason to stand up, to support them and to want them to become law.

Finally, to return to where I started, the message that the powers send to young people is that the Government and society do not want them to be part of society.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I know that the hon. Gentleman does a great deal of work with young people. He will know that when we talk about antisocial behaviour we always juxtapose young people and, for example, pensioners, whereas my experience is that many of those who want the legislation are themselves young

people who are alarmed, distressed and intimidated. That is a very important point. It is a fundamental error to set young people against pensioners, as the hon. Gentleman did in much of what he said. Young people want action, because they are intimidated.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I agree entirely that those who are most victimised by youth crime are other young people. The people who are most likely to be attacked in the street are young men. The figures speak for themselves, and I have done the Committee a disservice by not drawing them to its attention. However, they do not alter my conclusions.

I believe that I am the youngest person in the Committee. Not that long ago, I was of an age at which I would be affected by such activities. I can remember times as a teenager when I was alarmed, distressed or intimidated by groups of other teenagers, and I imagine that at times every one of us has felt like that. However, thinking back to those times, would we really have wanted the law to deal with our problems? That is what it comes down to. When we were teenagers, would we have gone to the police and said, ''I have been intimidated and harassed. Would you please go and move that bunch of young people on?''

Laura Moffatt (Labour, Crawley)

What would the hon. Gentleman do about a situation in my constituency in which groups of teenagers from rival schools waited at the bottom of an underpass day after day for children from the other school so that they could settle old scores? Situations such as that are very difficult to deal with and the police want powers to deal with them. Is he saying that he would not want such problems to be dealt with properly through the powers in the Bill?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am surprised that the police were unable to deal with the situation with their existing powers, which is what should happen if people are fighting and using violence against each other.

My school in Shrewsbury was Priory comprehensive; Meole Brace comprehensive was next door, and there was great rivalry between the two schools. I was in the first year of boys in what had been an all-girls school. Things were not the same when one school was mixed and the other was all girls, but as soon as boys attended both schools, precisely the same problem as the hon. Lady described happening in her constituency arose—in fact, if I am completely honest, I must admit that as a 12 and 13-year-old, I was probably part of it. The problem was dealt with by the schools agreeing to alter the times that they started and finished and by some strong enforcement by teachers. It was not even necessary to bring in the police at that stage.

Yes, such activities can be a problem, but I return to the fundamental point, which is that we are trying to raise the threshold, which we think has been set too low. The message that the clause sends to young people is entirely wrong. I do not believe that the Minister wants to send such a message to young people—at least, I sincerely hope not. I hope that he treats our amendments seriously.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I was not going to take part in this debate, but I feel that I must given the performance of

the Liberal Democrats. I do not know why, but they bring out the draconian side of me.

The Government are proposing a dispersal system to deal with the presence of gangs of youths, which is by far the biggest single issue relating to antisocial behaviour that I hear about from my constituents. When I looked into the issue prior to Second Reading, the comments that people made said it all: they referred to gangs of youths and young ruffians, sometimes in shopping centres or at night in the streets, and said that there should be curfews on such people; they mentioned large crowds of youths, drunken youths, and so on. The example that I mentioned earlier was brought up many times. The presence of groups of youths in shopping centres and at cash points is certainly intimidating, alarming and distressing people. If there is one call that I have heard loud and clear, it is that we have to do something about those groups of young people.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, those views were coming not only from pensioners but from young people themselves, who genuinely feel intimidated by the presence of those groups. They feel very alarmed and distressed by loitering and threatening behaviour. When I go round to schools and talk to children—particularly to primary school children and younger teenagers—they cite the 14 to 16 age group as the one that intimidates them the most.

I support the clause and I think that the Liberal Democrat amendments are completely wrong. They do not address the problem at all. If the Liberal Democrats really feel that someone's presence cannot alarm or distress, they need only look at the whipping system in the Commons. Much as I love the Whips—their presence has never alarmed or distressed me—I can imagine that certain of my colleagues feel very threatened by their presence.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

At no point did I deny that a person's presence might alarm or distress. My point was whether there should be a sanction against that presence that alarms and distresses, and my judgment is that there should not be.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

One of the hon. Gentleman's amendments would delete the whole section on ''presence'', but he has now suggested to me that he never denied that presence could be a problem.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is right.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I am sorry, but I think that that is typical Liberal Democrat confusion. I think that purely to focus as the hon. Gentleman has on acts of intimidation and harassment is completely against the ethos of the clause. We must address the potential for antisocial behaviour in areas that have been designated as having a particular problem. If his changes went through, he would not be raising thresholds; he would be watering down the powers in the clause. I know that many of my local police officers do not want them to be watered down: they are looking forward to having the powers to disperse groups, and the young people of Grimsby, Cleethorpes and Immingham want that to happen—as do all age

groups. It is a significant and serious problem and I do not want the clause to be watered down as the woolly, wet Liberal Democrats have suggested.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I almost hesitate to intervene in what is going on. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) suggested that the Conservatives might be worried by two Liberal canvassers coming down the road. My knee-jerk reaction would be to invite them to read his speech or even to hand them a few thousand copies of it to distribute. That would remove any concern that I might have, for reasons that the hon. Member for Cleethorpes has just described.

As the hon. Lady rightly said, the amendments would completely emasculate what the Government are trying to do. That is not to say that we are 100 per cent. behind the Government. The debate, including my remarks, will at least touch on other aspects, which we shall discuss in greater depth later. None the less, I cannot believe that anyone who has any understanding of the issue or who travels round the country does not realise that there is an ever-increasing problem with intimidation, harassment, distress and alarm. The problem is caused not only by the behaviour of groups but by their presence—the hon. Member for Cleethorpes was right about that. Many people are frightened to leave their homes. They cross the street to avoid clusters of people and will not go to the cash machine. The hon. Member for Ludlow may be saying that their reaction is unreasonable, and if he is, I shall return to his point. However, that is not to suggest that people are not alarmed or distressed by the behaviour or presence of such groups.

Our approach is to open up part 4, and we shall come to other amendments later. The caveats with which the Government have surrounded these powers are too strong and I do not think that we need them. Later, I shall discuss why we do not need to include provision for relevant localities. There is a problem in many parts of the country and police officers should not have to deal with all the paraphernalia in clause 30, which requires them to consult and to decide whether there is an ongoing problem in an area. Young people will soon discover that if they cross the street, they will leave the area and the problem will go away. The police should have the necessary powers.

Comments have been made about when we were young. All Members of the House are prone to stating opinion as fact, but it is pretty safe to say that we were all young once—that is probably the only thing that it is safe to state as fact. If we were being honest, we would have to admit that, as young people, we probably found ourselves in both the situations that have been described. Sometimes we were intimidated, distressed or alarmed by the presence of groups of other young people; sometimes, dare I say it, we may have been part of a group that was causing distress. We may not have done so intentionally, but we caused distress none the less. However, the point—this comes back to the remark made by the hon. Member for Gedling—is that if someone in authority told us to clear off, we probably did.

One of the candidates in my area in last week's elections was a man in his 50s. He has lived in his home town all his life. When he knocked on a particular door, a retired police officer came out and said, ''Ah, Hunt. I know the size of your collar, but I'll still vote for you''—not that that did the man any good, mind. The point is that he was a successful business man who, like many other people when they were young, pushed the limits. Many of us did that, although, of course, I do not include you, Mr. Cran. We pushed life to the limit, but we knew where to stop. Part of the trouble today is that that line has been pushed much further, and young people often do not know where to stop. The problems and challenges facing our police forces are such that officers are not always there to exert the authority that they did when we were young. The issue is how we address that.

I want part 4 to be amended so that a police officer can go wherever harassment, intimidation, distress or alarm is being caused. He can then move the young people on, send them home or even, in the case of those under 16, take them home, although that is a separate aspect. That is why I shall table amendments later to extend the opportunities for using the Bill's provisions beyond the very tight limits in the Bill.

I suppose that, in a spirit of generosity, I can say that the speech of the hon. Member for Ludlow identified the kernel of a problem. There is always the risk that a power may be used where it should not be. There must, therefore, be some test of reasonableness. I listened to the intervention of the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), who rightly reminded us of the opening line of clause 29(1). I shall be interested in the Minister's response to this, but my reading of

''where the relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing . . . that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed''

is that it is not the test of reasonableness to which I referred earlier. That would ask whether the distress or alarm was a reasonable reaction to the presence or behaviour of young people.

There is no point in having a Committee stage and cross-examining clauses if we do not expose every possible aspect. It is perfectly fair to say that there are people in this country who are over-sensitive and are distressed or alarmed by things that would not distress or alarm the average person. That is why I shall move amendments later that would introduce an obligation on the police officer to assess whether the reaction was reasonable or whether the person apparently becoming alarmed or distressed was being completely unreasonable. They should not assess the fact that they are alarmed, but ask whether a more normal, average person would have been alarmed in those circumstances.

I have found a clear example of that. To be completely politically incorrect, but brutally frank, we know that some people in this country, particularly perhaps the elderly, may find the presence of people of a different race standing together on their street intimidating. We might think that that is totally unreasonable—I do. However, we would be kidding ourselves to pretend that that might not happen. I would object strongly if a group of people were moved

on, simply because their colour or race was causing distress to someone else, despite the fact that they were not doing anything. That is why I think that there needs to be a test of reasonableness put on the officer to decide whether the reaction shown by members of the public is reasonable. I shall move amendments later to make that point more formally.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I am well aware of the fact, as is the Committee, that the hon. Gentleman has a number of groups of amendments yet to come along. I should say now that we do not want to debate those groups twice, thrice or four times.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has now made the point that I wanted to make—on race or colour.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and chided by your comments, Mr. Cran. I do not want to introduce other groups of amendments at this stage, but through the amendments I was trying to address what I think is a kernel of truth in the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow: the possibility that powers could be exceeded or that people's reactions might be unreasonable. I do not think that we should address that problem, however, through dramatically reducing the scope of part 4 by removing the terms ''alarmed or distressed'' and ''presence'', as this group of amendments proposes. Those are perfectly reasonable terms to have in the legislation. The issue is whether they happen reasonably, and I think that the proposals that I shall introduce later are a more effective way of dealing with that problem.

It is quite clear from what I have said that we cannot support this group of amendments. We think that they weaken the Bill dramatically. There is a little problem there, but it can be addressed in a better way.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I was going to start by saying that I was not exactly an angel in my youth either, but the tone of the debate has become much more serious and concentrated, so I shall not dwell on that.

This is a valuable provision, but I must tell the Committee and my hon. Friend the Minister that my acting chief constable was concerned about some of the language and approached me to outline his concern. In fairness, some of the things that the hon. Member for Ludlow said during his contribution have been said to me. My acting chief constable made some fairly cautious comments about the provision, but the police in my community most certainly have not. They were differently focused from the acting chief constable.

The generality of conclusions reached by the police in my community, who sometimes have to handle outrageous behaviour on the streets, was that the provision gives the police the right to make judgments, the opportunity to define known individuals, the option to speak to parents and, if all the prevention on the judgments that they could make failed, the ability to move in and secure an intimidating, harassing or frightening situation. I have a lot of such behaviour in some parts of my constituency and

it was valuable to hear the police speak as they did. Street wardens attempt to speak persuasively to youngsters and we have two superb youth facilities, one of which has just been opened and was built at a cost of £1 million. The group of youngsters who persist in enjoying intimidation and threatening behaviour though small, still threatens the youth facility that is up and running.

I am listening carefully and I do not want draconian measures. I want a balanced, measured approach when dealing with young people, who often believe that older people only criticise and complain about them. I do not take that stance, but I want the police to have the ability to move in to control a situation and we should facilitate that.

I want to tell one story, but I am mindful, Mr. Cran, that I must not go on and on. An 78-year-old gentleman who has lived a good and just life told me one Saturday morning that he no longer goes into the garden because there is no point. He does not mind the children coming for footballs that come over the hedge because that is the way it is, but they come through the hedge and break the flowers, and when he spoke to them they broke every window at the side of his house. We must acknowledge that there is a tiny group of youngsters who cannot be spoken to and there is no language to convince or persuade them that good behaviour is valuable for us all. I do not believe that the provision is draconian. I believe that the words,

''or is likely to result'',

if based on reasonable grounds, are appropriate.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I want to put on record that there is no reason to suggest that the amendments do not set limits for young people's behaviour. Very bad behaviour must be dealt with, particularly criminal behaviour such as the breaking of windows. Our concern is that it is unusual in law to tackle not the behaviour of the people who will be confronted by the police but the perception of that behaviour by others. I would have thought that that was unusual.

There is some common ground with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. Making judgments based on the perception of others is a slippery slope. It is likely to lead to alienation and worse behaviour. We have said that there are excesses and cases for dispersal. We all know of situations that have got totally out of control. However, a group of young people who are just out and about, talking to one another, could be perceived as a threat when, in reality, they are not doing anything wrong.

Surely the way forward is to think about all those other good measures that the Government are bringing in. There is going to be more money in the youth service again—terrific. There will be more detached workers and more money for youth facilities, says she optimistically—I hope that that includes my part of the world. Rather than dispersing people who are hanging around for want of something better to do, we should consider opportunities to work with those young people, if they are not doing anything wrong. We agree that action needs to be taken.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Given what the hon. Lady has just said, how would she regard the situation in the main street in Cleethorpes? Gangs of young people hang around cash points, which causes distress and alarm to people using them. How would her view of the matter, and the amendments, deal with that?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

In an ideal world, young people would not be hanging around. We should be considering providing diverting activities. I would want to think that a lot of work was being done with those young people, if they were not doing anything wrong. Going straight to such draconian powers almost knocks those things out of the equation.

I have been in difficult situations that are similar to the one described by the hon. Lady. People are put under enormous mental stress when a lot of young people gather outside their houses. However, if those young people are not doing anything wrong, the onus should be on working with them and providing diverting activities.

I just wanted to put the matter in perspective. It has been suggested that the Liberal Democrats do not want to take any action at all. That is not the case. We want to take effective action. We do not want to alienate young people; we want to make life much better.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am assuming that the hon. Lady is giving way.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

So am I.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I wonder whether the hon. Lady is living in cloud-cuckoo land when she talks about finding young people something to do. The hon. Member for Ludlow said that he was one of the youngest members of the Committee; I am probably at the other end of the spectrum. It has always been a cry that young people have not got enough to do but that is not an excuse for causing hassle to others. The reality is that there are more facilities for young people today than there have ever been. I am not necessarily lauding the Government for that. It is just the nature of commercial life. However, the fact that there is more and more to do does not stop people from causing the problems that we are trying to deal with.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I absolutely agree. There is no excuse whatever for hassling others. However, should there really be police intervention based on the perception that behaviour is wrong, rather than on actual behaviour?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I would like to say a few words because antisocial behaviour has been a serious and growing problem in my constituency over the 10 years that I have been a Member of Parliament. It has grown steadily, and people increasingly ask me what I, as a politician, am doing about it. I say to the hon. Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and for Ludlow that my mind goes back to a meeting I attended in one part of my constituency recently, where the demands were being led by some of the Liberal Democrat councillors. They put me on the spot and asked me what I was supporting. I told them about something I was supporting but I did not have

the heart to tell them that the parliamentary Liberal Democrats were opposing it. That concerned a different measure but I think that we will arrive at a similar position today.

The hon. Lady says that there are too many thresholds and too few conditions that have to be met. My concern is the opposite: there are slightly too many conditions that have to be met, and I ask the Government to reconsider them. I want respectfully to take the hon. Lady through the hurdles that it seems have to be surmounted before the orders can be made. First, a relevant officer, who has to be a senior officer, has to have reasonable grounds for believing—that is fairly strong in legal terms—

''(a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places in any locality in his police area (the 'relevant locality'), and

(b) that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality.''

Both of those conditions have to be satisfied. The process does not stop there. The officer's authorisation must meet the requisite formalities. I have a slight concern about that. The authorisation has to meet the formalities that are set out in clause 30. It must be in writing and specify each of the requirements. There also has to be consultation with the local authority and a notice put up locally.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I am concerned that we are going slightly wider than the narrow amendment before us. Can the hon. Gentleman return to it?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I am drawn towards it, Mr. Cran. I shall come back to order because I am dealing with a point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole about the amendment. She said that the clause should not deal with alarm or distress because that might happen through the mere presence of people in the area. Such an order can only come about when there has been a proven problem in an area of antisocial behaviour, when authorisation has been given and there has been consultation. All those processes must be gone through.

The order will not simply happen at the whim of an officer or the drop of a hat—not that that would be likely to happen in any case because we all know the pressures that there are on police officers. If the hon. Lady believes that there is not enough formality there, not enough conditions to be met and she still wants to water down the provision, she will rarely be satisfied.

As for the hon. Lady's argument that before we do anything we should consider ways of diverting people from that behaviour, we would all say amen to that. However, that would seem to be an argument against any type of public order legislation, whether it is on breach of the peace, assault or anything of that nature, because we should always be doing something else about it.

One has to deal with a particular mischief. The clause deals with a clearly defined mischief. The words are well known to the law. They go back to the antisocial behaviour legislation brought in by the Government, which itself was a replication of the Public Order Act 1986. That Act was based on public

order legislation of the 1930s. If there is a problem with the wording, there is a problem with the whole of public order legislation. Someone can be arrested under the public order provisions for behaviour that causes or is likely to cause a breach of the peace in any of the ways specified. An antisocial behaviour order can be brought against them, or they can be arrested and brought to court for breach of the peace.

I return to the words that the hon. Lady wants to take out. She wants to water the provision down. She accepts the inclusion of ''intimidated'' and ''harassed'' but wants to remove ''alarmed'' and ''distressed''. Groups of youths are not specified in the clause. The youths debate was a red herring. The legislation specifies ''persons'', so it could refer to people of any age. We had a debate about other legislation where the Liberal Democrats thought that the behaviour of old age pensioners could be a problem. I will not go down that route, Mr. Cran, or you will draw me back to order. If people's behaviour is causing alarm, distress, harassment or intimidation, I do not think it unduly draconian for police officers to be authorised to disperse them, or, as we used to call it, move them on.

I put a question to the Minister based on the words ''alarmed'' and ''distressed'': would a police officer be within their rights to arrest a member of such a group for breach of the peace under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, rather than moving them on?

We should not water down the legislation to the extent that the Liberal Democrats want—their concern for civil liberties is entirely misplaced—and should not start examining alternatives when there is mischief. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wants to license any sort of behaviour. The legislation may help but my concern is that there are already too many conditions and it will not be as much help as I should like it to be. I am concerned about how similar provisions have been used. I am looking to the Minister to give a careful justification of why so many hoops have to be jumped through before authorisation can be given.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

For me, the clause is one of the most important in the Bill. In our advice surgeries and in letters, we have seen an enormous change in residents' concerns. Concern about gangs of people, who are not necessarily young, gathering on street corners has transformed the living conditions of a number of people in specific wards in my constituency. People who are concerned or frightened that such groups may harass them are in the main young people themselves. Who is most likely to be attacked in the street? Who are more likely to be harassed by a gang of young people other than young people themselves?

It was heartbreaking at my surgery a couple of weeks ago, when a lady came to ask me for a management transfer from her housing association home because her 17-year-old son had come home in terrible distress and broken down in tears. He said that he had to pretend to be friends with the guys on the corner of the street because if he did not, he did not know what would happen to him. He felt so

intimidated by their presence that he had to change his behaviour. He felt that he had to conform to their antisocial behaviour in order for him to continue to live in his own home and walk down his own street.

We can all cite loads of examples of elderly people being frightened by a group of young people on a street corner, but they have reason to be fearful. All of us who have been local councillors know that one can provide as many youth centres as one likes, but one cannot get the young people who need to go to them to attend. They will gather outside the youth centre or down the road, but they will not use the centre unless they are required to do so, because meeting on a street corner and frightening people is fun. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling had a conversation with one of his constituents about that.

How can we convince members of the public to have confidence in the police and to report crime, if they do not believe that the police can move gangs of people who intimidate them? They currently believe that there is no point in complaining about car crime, burglary or bigger crimes because politicians, the police and the authorities cannot deal with their street environment. Unless we can tackle the matter in a simple way and unless we can give the Bill to the police in an easily enforceable form—we will want to talk about clause 30 later—we will see fewer people voting and fewer people engaging with society because they will have no faith in us.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The start of the debate by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who is the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesman for youth, was lengthy. We should clarify exactly what the amendments would do. He is saying that he wants to raise the threshold so that

''where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing . . . that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour of groups''

and where

''anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality'',

a constable should not be allowed to disperse a group of young people whom he suspects of causing alarm or distress. We totally disagree with him. We are dealing with a real problem and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, we must give the police the powers to tackle this nuisance.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Is the Minister not being a little too modest in his argument? Before the power in the clause could be exercised, would not a relevant officer—a senior officer—have to believe that there had been a previous episode in which someone had been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed? Would not antisocial behaviour also have to be a significant and persistent problem? There would then have to be a further episode, and an individual officer who had been duly authorised would have to believe that members of the public had been intimidated, harassed, alarmed of distressed.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is saying anything different from me. He

is absolutely right about what the Liberal Democrats are suggesting. They are saying that where both conditions apply—where members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed, and where antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the area—and where consultation has taken place, a constable should not be allowed to move the groups involved.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Unbelievable.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is unbelievable. However, that is the effect of the amendments.

This part of the Bill aims to tackle the problem of groups of young people gathering in a way that causes intimidation, alarm and distress. People have a right to feel safe in their communities. We must avoid situations in which they are afraid to use public spaces because they feel threatened by groups of people hanging around. We know that this is a real problem up and down the country. In 2000, 32 per cent. of the respondents to the British crime survey cited teenagers hanging around on the street as a very or a fairly big problem in their area.

The police are often called to deal with such problems, but they do not have the powers to do so unless criminal offences have been committed. The Bill aims to give them the necessary powers in areas where antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. We propose two new powers. First, there is the power to disperse groups. Secondly, there is the power to return people under 16 who are unsupervised in public places after 9 pm to their homes.

Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 155, 160, 162, 168 and 169 would limit the use of the powers before us to cases where members of the public had been ''intimidated or harassed''. The Government believe that the words ''alarmed or distressed'' should also be added. Members of the public should be protected in their communities from feeling alarmed and distressed by the presence and behaviour of groups.

Amendment No. 156 would remove the possibility of the police using the powers before us on the basis of the presence of groups that were causing intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress. The Government believe that it is not only the behaviour of groups that threatens people; their presence and the fear of what they may do prevents people from using open spaces and facilities in their communities.

Amendment No. 161 would prevent a constable from using the power in the clause where he had reasonable grounds for believing that a group's presence or behaviour would result in members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed. It is essential that constables or community support officers have the power to prevent members of the public from being affected in that way and to prevent intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress in the first place. Officers should not have to wait until they witness such incidents in areas that have a history of them.

Amendment No. 167 would remove a clarification that the Government consider essential for the effective operation of the powers before us. Any reference in the clause to the presence or behaviour of a group of persons is to be read as a reference to the presence or the behaviour of any one or more persons in that group. It is essential that the police are able to deal with such groups as a collective problem rather than focus on the behaviour of one particular person in the group. It would be very difficult indeed for a constable or a community safety officer to pick out exactly which individuals in a group had caused intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress and to give direction only to those individuals to disperse.

We have had a good debate, which has exposed a fundamental difference in the Committee about what is necessary. I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment, although given the performance that we have just witnessed, I have no confidence that he will do so. If he is not prepared to do that, we shall vote the amendment down.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall be brief, unlike in my first contribution on this group of amendments when I took interventions from about two thirds of the Committee. However, I can do my maths. Virtually every member of the Committee has either spoken or intervened, so it is clear which way hon. Members would vote. I shall, therefore, not waste the Committee's time by pressing the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 106, in

clause 29, page 23, line 34, leave out 'public places' and insert 'any place'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 157, in

clause 29, page 23, line 34, leave out

'public places in any locality'

and insert 'a public place'.

Amendment No. 110, in

clause 29, page 23, line 43, leave out 'public place' and insert 'place'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

This group would do precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere suggested earlier, which is remove or lower some of the hurdles before the powers are implemented. Although amendments Nos. 106 and 110 are Conservative amendments, the Liberal Democrats tabled amendment No. 157.

The amendment would remove the word ''public'' from the description of the place where the behaviour is occurring or where the presence of certain people is causing problems. I do not quite understand why the word ''public'' is necessary. The clause seeks to remove intimidation, harassment, distress or alarm, yet those things can equally happen on private land. That does not necessarily mean that the people who are suffering distress or alarm are in a private place—they may or may not be. I am worried about the possible consequences of restricting the location of the behaviour or presence to a public place.

To take a slightly extreme example, a group of young people could be standing on the street causing the problem, yet as soon as someone turns up to remonstrate they could hop over a fence, stand on somebody's lawn and keep going, thereby becoming immune from prosecution and free to continue causing distress or alarm with impunity. That might be possible with a superstore or pub car park. I do not know whether the Minister classifies such places as public, but the land is privately owned, even though the public can use it. The use of the word ''public'' in the definition of the land where the behaviour or presence can occur is an unnecessary restriction.

I am not advocating, before anyone suggests that I am, that the provision should apply to people who are shouting foul and abusive language in the middle of someone's private property miles from any public road. If they are on private property, that is a separate issue. However, it seems unwise to restrict the power. I know the proclivity of young people in particular to understand exactly where the line of the law is and how to get past it. They will quickly find a way of doing so if there is a restriction to a public place. If they can get away with it from a pub car park or by hopping over a fence on to private property, they will quickly make a laughing stock of the provisions.

There is no great need for me to spend much more time introducing the amendment. Obviously, it is part and parcel of our attempts to lower or to remove some of the hurdles that have to be jumped before the police can take action. I do not believe that it is necessary to restrict the power to public places but I would be interested to hear the Minister's response. We must ensure that the police can deal with the problem as and when it arises, and that is the purpose of the amendment.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

As we heard during debates on a series of amendments to part 1, there is a continual problem throughout the Bill about where thresholds are set. A concern that we all have with the raft of measures in the Bill, including those on the dispersal of groups, which is a significant improvement to the law that really will make a difference, is that we must ensure that the powers are used. We have passed many measures but have been disappointed about the way in which they have been used.

The power in the clause will make a significant difference to the quality of life in many of our communities for old, middle-aged and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, young people as well but we must ensure that it is used. I do not know whether the amendment is the right one—the Minister may be able to give good reasons why the wording in the Bill is appropriate—but I ask him to keep under constant review the various amendments and thoughts that come forward to ensure that we do not have legislation that sounds good but is too bureaucratic or unwieldy to be used by police officers or anyone else.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

One of the amendments has been tabled by the Liberal Democrats. The Minister may find it hard to believe but we are actually trying to help him with our amendment No. 157. The test in clause

29(1)(a) is that the behaviour or likely behaviour—we have had that debate, so I shall not go into it again—must take place in several places in a locality. We wanted to set the thresholds higher but we failed on that. However, we agree that some of the powers should be in place. If a problem in just one particular place in a locality is severe enough, the police should act. Our amendment would replace

''public places in any locality''

with ''a public place'', so that something does not have to take place in more than one area. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling, in that if we are to have the law—we may disagree on where to set the thresholds—it might as well be law that the police can use if they need to.

Let me turn briefly to the Conservatives' amendments. I understand the problem that they are trying to deal with, as does the hon. Member for Gedling, but they have not found the right way of doing it. The danger of using the phrase ''any place'' is that it could be inside someone's home. I understand that the police can enter a home in only two circumstances—when they have a warrant and when they believe that a crime is being committed there. [Interruption.] Someone believes that I am wrong but that is my understanding of the law.

The amendment would give the police the right to enter a house to deal with a group of young people where the parents are away. That is not what the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, intends but it is possible. I realise that someone hopping over a hedge would be not in a public place but in a private garden, and I can see the problem that the hon. Gentleman is trying to deal with. However, I suspect that the form of words is not right. None of us may have quite the right answer but we are saying to the Minister that there could be a problem. The Government may want to return to it at a later stage.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.