Standing Committee G
Thursday 8 May 2003
(Morning)
[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]
9.10 am
The Chairman: 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
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): I beg to move amendment No. 43, in
clause 18, page 16, line 1, after 'body', insert 'or head teacher'.
The Chairman: 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
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
Amendment No. 48, in
clause 18, page 16, line 15, leave out 'must' and insert 'should'.
Mr. Hawkins: 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
Column Number: 086
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
Column Number: 087
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
Column Number: 088
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.
|
