![]() House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills Bill |
Education and Skills Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee
Clerks
attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 February 2008(Morning)[John Bercow in the Chair]Education and Skills BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HouseE&S
17 Careers England, the Institute of Career Guidance, National
Association of Connexions Partners, Association for Careers Education
and Guidance and the Inspiring Futures Foundation
E&S 18 Association of Directors of
Childrens
ServicesSupplementary
Clause 33Other
amendments of Employment Rights Act
1996
9
am
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
I beg to
move amendment No. 135, in clause 33, page 17, line 35, at end
insert
( ) In section 105
(redundancy), after subsection (4A)
insert
(4B)
This subsection applies if the reason (or, if more than one, the
principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was
that specified in section
101B..
Jim
Knight:
What a delight it is to see you in the Chair,
Mr. Bercow, particularly given that you look so refreshed
after a couple of days rest from the Committees
deliberations. It is also a delight to see the hon. Member for Bristol,
West in his place, because we have missed him.
It is important to ensure that
young people are not discriminated against at work simply because they
wish to fulfil their duty to participate. Clause 32 makes it clear that
employers must not discriminate against 16 or 17-year-olds for
exercising their right to be permitted by their employer to attend
education or training and that it would be deemed as unfair dismissal
if someone were dismissed solely on those grounds. As the Committee is
aware, young people will be required to participate only until they are
18, so there will be many cases where a young person will not have been
continuously employed for a year while they are still subject to the
duty to participate.
Normally,
there is no right to claim unfair dismissal without a years
continuous service, but amendment No. 136 means that claims for unfair
dismissal under new section 101B, which clause 32 creates to deal with
this issue, should be exempt from the usual requirement to have
undertaken a years continuous employment.
Amendment No. 135 is a further, consequential amendment to the
Employment Rights Act 1996, which clarifies the fact that it would be
unfair to select someone for redundancy for the same reasons. I
therefore propose that the amendment be
accepted.
Amendment
agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended,
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34Parenting
contracts
Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): I beg to
move amendment No. 33, in
clause 34, page 18, line 11, at
end insert
(2A) Prior to
entering into a parenting contract the local education authority shall
ensure that parents needs are assessed by the appropriate local
authority adult
services..
Welcome
back to the Chair, Mr. Bercow. You seem to be doing overtime
at the moment, but you are very welcome. There is something rather
incongruous about clauses 34 and 35 and about the use of parenting
contracts and parenting orders to enforce the duty that the Bill
imposes on 16 and 17-year-olds. That goes back to our earlier debate
about what age constitutes maturity and the beginning of adulthood, and
that is particularly pertinent to these provisions.
Sixteen-year-olds
are regarded in law as old enough to marry and have children, so they
could become parents themselves, only to find that their own parents
are subject to a parenting contract about them. It is unrealistic to
expect parents to rein in, or change the behaviour of, 16 or
17-year-olds who have decided to opt out of education and training.
There might have been parenting problems while the children were
growing up, and those problems might have contributed to the fact that
the young person is no longer participating in education or training.
It is naive and unrealistic to think that applying a parenting contract
or order at this stage would help to tackle the issue, because it would
be too late.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con):
I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr.
Bercow. I hope that I can assist my hon. Friend by reminding him that
when he and I, in harness together, put it to the Minister in a
Committee on a different Bill that parenting contracts should have
greater statutory force at an earlier age, the Government resisted our
overtures, so the current proposals are indeed
incongruous.
Mr.
Gibb:
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am grateful
to him for intervening. As he says, it will be too late to introduce
parenting contracts, which would need to have been put in place when
the children really were children.
Last year,
13,278 parenting contracts were made as a result of poor school
attendance, which is 89 per local authority, using the
Ministers assessment of quantum. Some 2,535 contracts were made
as a result of exclusions from school, which is just 17 per local
authority. I suspect that the number of parenting contracts that will
be issued as a result of the clause and as a consequence
of 16- and 17-year-olds not participating in education or training will
be small. It will certainly be smaller than the 89 and 17 per local
authority issued in respect of children of compulsory school
age.
Amendment
No. 33 adds a new subsection to clause 34, requiring local authorities
to ensure that the particular needs of the parents are assessed by the
adult services department before a parenting contract is proposed or
entered into. The amendment was inspired by the Princess Royal Trust
for Carers, which is concerned that young people who are carers,
responsible for sick parents or siblings, may find themselves in breach
of the duties to participate in education or training because of the
burden of their own
responsibilities.
The
trust believes that before local authorities begin the enforcement
process and approach the parents of those carers, they should assess
the needs of the parents themselves, who may be ill or incapacitated.
Community services may have proved inadequate, thus necessitating care
by their children. In those cases, the local authority or primary care
trust may have failed to fulfil its statutory duty to provide care for
the parents. As the trust states in its briefing, the fact that there
are so many young
carers
points to the
fact that the current provision of community care support often does
not meet the needs of families, requiring children to step into caring
roles that can be incredibly demanding, including night-time care,
intimate care, help with medication and taking responsibility for the
safety of someone who is at risk of self-harm or substance
overdose.
I
am sure that the Minister will agree with our concern over the problems
faced by young carers, and I am sure that it is a simple oversight that
has resulted in the Bill failing to include such provision. If the
Government do not accept the amendment, down the line we will see
officious local authorities proceeding with parenting contracts,
apologetically explaining that their hands are tied by the legislation.
I trust that we will receive a sympathetic response from the Minister,
and, at the very least, a promise of a Government amendment along
similar lines on
Report.
Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): It is nice to be back in
Committee, and I thank the Minister for his warm welcome. I am
representing my party while my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil is
engaged on business
elsewhere.
I broadly
support what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said.
One of the most moving meetings that I have had in the period of almost
three years in which I have been a Member of Parliament was with a
group of young carers, organised by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers
in Bristol. The children present ranged in age from the quite young,
who would not be affected by the Bill, to the late teens, who would be.
Some of them had had incredible responsibilities placed on their young
shoulders, as in many cases, they looked after a parent with multiple
sclerosis or a terminal disease, or a siblinga responsibility
to which the hon. Gentleman did not
refer.
Often
teenagers have onerous home responsibilities that are not recognised or
taken into account during the period of compulsory school attendance to
the age of 16. As a result, more time and consideration may be required
if, for instance, they have not done their homework, they turn up late
for school, or they need to make phone
calls during the day. There is plenty of evidence showing that the
existing system of compulsory education does not take into account the
special requirements of that group of young
people.
Once
those young people reach the age of 16 or 17 and have to take part in
compulsory education to meet the requirements of the legislation, they
may not be able to fulfil their domestic responsibilities to assist in
the care of their parents or siblings. It would then be unreasonable
for the state to impose a duty and a contract on the parent to allow
their child to be away from home when they are dependent upon their
child for part of their home care. The debate about whether it is fair
that the parent should be dependent upon that child is for another
time, but the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton gave a
good common-sense example to show that it could be detrimental to the
rights of the parent if their child were obliged to attend college or
go to the workplace when that they are dependent on the child for
domestic
assistance.
Mr.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool, South) (Lab): I have
considerable sympathy with the concern that the hon. Gentleman has
articulated, but I would be interested to know what evidence he has
that local authorities that have to deal with attendance issues in the
pre-16 period are unsympathetic to the circumstances in which young
carers find
themselves.
Stephen
Williams:
I know from the questions that the hon.
Gentleman asked when we both served on the Education and Skills
Committee that he takes a close interest in these matters. My evidence
came directly from the young people I met, who thought that their
schools were not sympathetic to the requirements placed on them by
their home duties. We have received written evidence from the Princess
Royal Trust that the absence of a child who is a carer from school is
often categorised as truancy, and we have had debates in Committee and
elsewhere about what is authorised and what is unauthorised absence.
There is already a problem with the way in which those children are
categorised by the local authority, and we do not want that problem to
be replicated later in the system. The amendment responds to concerns
that the measure would put an onerous duty on the parent to ensure that
their child attends college. That could be going too far, so I wish to
support the
amendment.
Jim
Knight:
I shall begin by saying a few
things about the principle of parent contracts and orders, then move on
to address the amendment. It is worth pointing out to the Committee
that we already have parenting contracts and orders for over-16s with
regard to behaviour. It is only the duties limited to school attendance
that apply to compulsory school age. As we discussed when we debated
whether it is appropriate to impose a duty post-16, the principle is
established that the period between the ages of 16 and 19 is a
transitional period between childhood and adolescence, and it is
appropriate in certain circumstances to look at parents
responsibilities for people of that
age.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): The amendment raises the
issue of circumstances in which there are two parents in the equation.
There is the first generation
parent: the parent of the teenager. If the teenager concerned is a
16-year-old girl who is herself a mother, she, too, is a parent and has
parenting responsibilities. If that girl does not remain in the family
home and is living in hostel accommodation or a council flat, under the
terms of the Bill, is that a sufficient and reasonable excuse for her
not to be engaged in education or training? Where does the
responsibility lie for the continuing education and training of the
teenage girl? Does it lie with her
parents?
The
Chairman:
Order. I think that I have the drift and, more
importantly, I think that the Minister does,
too.
Jim
Knight:
Yes, I think so, and I am
grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me an opportunity to seek to
clarify that issue. In such circumstances, it is important that the
mother of the young child, as opposed to the parent of the young
mother, should receive appropriate support. There should be no
enforcement against her unless that support is in place and a programme
is available such as care to learn, which assists young parents with
child care when they want to access college courses. All of those
factors would need properly to be taken into consideration by the local
authority in fulfilling its duty to enable young people to fulfil their
duties.
9.15
am
It would be
extremely unlikely that an authority would think it appropriate to use
a contract or an order for the parent of a young mother. The test set
out in subsection (2)(b) is
that
the authority
considers that entering into the parenting contract would be desirable
in the interests of the young persons fulfilment of that
duty.
The
test is whether it would be useful in assisting the young person, and
the Committee must take that into account in its discussions on
parenting contracts. There may be cases in which parents obstruct young
people in the fulfilment of their duty. For example, they might insist
that the young person remains at home looking after younger siblings or
they might indulge in some form of antisocial activity late into the
night that keeps the young person awake. It would be appropriate to
reach an agreement with such parentsand that is what a
parenting contract isto set out quite clearly that they have a
responsibility to ensure that their children get a reasonable
nights sleep so that they can participate in their college or
training
course.
Naturally,
I agree with the sentiment and intention behind the amendment in
respect of carers. It is critical that the local authority assess the
support needs of young carers. A cross-Government review of the
national carers strategy is under way, and provides an opportunity to
reassess the support available to young carers. Young carers have been
consulted and stakeholder bodies with knowledge of the issues are fully
engaged. We look forward to receiving the detailed recommendations
later this year. In the interim, to help secure early progress, we
announced in the childrens plan our intention to build on our
existing plans for family pathfinders. Up to six pathfinders will be
extended to test the provision of more effective support for families
with young carers.
The aim is to achieve better provision by ensuring that support is
organised so that children in the family do not fall into inappropriate
or burdensome caring roles in the first place. Pathfinders will provide
invaluable learning on these issues, which will be shared across all
areas, and £3 million is available over the next three years to
support that goal. We are also funding the Childrens Society
and the Princess Royal Trust, which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton mentioned, to deliver a programme of training for
services that support young carers and their families. That training is
due to roll out across the first set of regions early this
year.
We
expect local authorities to assess the needs of the parent before
entering into a parenting contract. Guidance for local authorities on
parenting contracts for non-attendance of children under 16 says that
they should consult other agencies involved, identify issues and carry
out an assessment using the common assessment framework. However, it
would not be appropriate to make that a statutory requirement. It will
be for local authorities to judge what is appropriate in each case,
having regard to guidance and to any assessment that they have carried
out regarding the parent and the young person. They may be well
acquainted with the familys circumstances, for example,
as a result of the involvement of other local authority services, so
such an assessment might not always be necessary. Requiring local
authorities to carry out an additional assessment when they have
recently completed an assessment of the family would be an additional
and unnecessary burden. It is better to retain flexibility by keeping
the provisions as they are at the
moment.
Mr.
Gibb:
Does the Minister think that communications between
the statutory bodies that deal with such problems are adequate, given
the Victoria ClimbiĆ(c) tragedy and subsequent tragedies of a
similar nature that have happened in recent
weeks?
Jim
Knight:
I think that they can always be improved, and we
are gradually doing so. We have made really good progress on
safeguarding young people, which will be improved further by the data
sharing that we so much enjoyed discussing on Tuesday. That will allow
agencies dealing with young people to see which other agencies have had
access to them. If they are part of the same local authority, there is
even greater potential for people to be aware of what is going on in a
particular family, through case conferences and so on. I agree with the
hon. Gentlemans intention, and I stress that I expect local
authorities to conduct assessments, but I urge him to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am not persuaded by the Ministers
response. He seems to be relying on the assertion, to repeat his
phrase, that We would expect parents needs to be
assessed and that there is a statutory requirement to consult
other agencies. However, there is not a statutory requirement to assess
the needs of these particular parents. I am afraid that I do not have
the same trust as he does in the communication abilities of the people
who should take that responsibility.
Even now,
after the Every Child Matters agenda has been implemented across local
authorities, at vast expense and with a reorganisation of their
departments, we still
have the problem of people not communicating, highlighted in recent news
stories. A baby was tortured to death, and despite scores of incidents
of involvement of health professionals, no action was taken by a local
authority childrens services department. I do not believe that
the Minister is right to rely on what happens in local authorities. He
says that they may well be acquainted with a familys
circumstances, but they may well not. It is important that there is a
statutory requirement on local authorities, before they start issuing
parenting contracts, to assess the needs of parents, who may well have
medical needs that are not being addressed by social
services.
The
Minister referred to clause 34(2), which states that a local authority
in England
may enter
into a parenting contract with a parent of the young
person
(a) if
the parent is resident in England,
and
(b) the authority
considers that entering into the parenting contract would be desirable
in the interests of the young persons fulfilment of that
duty.
He
interprets that as applying if a parent is keeping their child up at
night or doing something negative to prevent a 16-year-old from
participating in education or training, but that is not the only
possible interpretation. In fact, the most common interpretation is
that there is a positive duty on the parent to do something to help the
young person into education or training. In the circumstances that my
hon. Friend the Member for Upminster gavea young mother living
in separate accommodationit would be naive to expect that
parent to have influence over the young person and persuade them into
education or
training.
I am not
convinced, and I do not think that the Minister has convinced other
members of the Committee, so I wish to press the
amendment.
Jim
Knight:
I do not usually seek another go, but I stress
that the clause states that the local authority
may enter into a parenting
contract.
It is not
required to do so. Subsection (6) states that a parenting
contract
does not
create any obligations in respect of whose breach any liability arises
in contract or in
tort,
so a person
cannot be sued for breaching it. Subsection (3)(b)
mentions
a statement by
the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the
parent.
In many cases,
the contracts are a valuable way to clarify support. If a parent has
problems such as not receiving sufficient local authority support,
contracts can be
positive.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful to the Minister for intervening and
will happily give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East
Hertfordshire.
Mr.
Heald:
I think that I have the basic idea of what
parenting contracts are about, but I wonder whether it would be
possible for the Minister to circulate some examples of contracts that
he thinks might be useful. Are they simply about parents trying to
force the child to go to college? What exactly is the nature of the
contract?
Mr.
Gibb:
My hon. Friend makes a good and valuable point, and
I hope that the Minister will intervene on me to respond to
it.
I
tried to give one or two examples earlier. We introduced the contract,
like the orders, mostly as a mechanism to deal with parents who are
obstructing young people fulfilling their duty through their behaviour
or by asking them to do things that are unreasonable when they have
another duty to perform. But, as I said, there may also be
circumstances in which it would be helpful for the local authority to
clarify the support that they will give to the parent, as the support
the parent should give to the
child.
Mr.
Gibb:
I feel like a middleman in an important dialogue,
but I will now address the point that the Minister made about
subsection (3)(b), which states that a parenting contract should
contain
a statement by
the local education authority that it agrees to provide support to the
parent.
He is right to
cite the subsection, but the contract can include a statement of
support for the parent only if the local authority is aware of the
needs of the parent. I therefore see no harm in simply adding to the
clause the
phrase:
Prior
to entering into a parenting contract the local education authority
shall ensure that parents needs are assessed by the appropriate
local authority adult
services.
Such
a requirement would not add burdensome assessment. If there are no
needs and if both parents are healthy, it will be a two-minute job,
which is less than the 10 minutes that the Minister is requiring every
employer to spend on assessing new employees who start work with them.
It would not be burdensome, nor would it detract from the clause; in
fact, it would enhance it. Therefore, I would like to press the
amendment to a
Division.
Question
put, That the amendment be
made:
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
10.
Division
No.
20
]
AYESNOES
Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause
34
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 22 February 2008 |