House of Commons portcullis
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:

Chairmen: John Bercow, Hugh Bayley
Barlow, Ms Celia (Hove) (Lab)
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester) (Lab)
Gibb, Mr. Nick (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Griffith, Nia (Llanelli) (Lab)
Hayes, Mr. John (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Heald, Mr. Oliver (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Knight, Jim (Minister for Schools and Learners)
Lammy, Mr. David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills)
Laws, Mr. David (Yeovil) (LD)
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah (Portsmouth, North) (Lab/Co-op)
Marsden, Mr. Gordon (Blackpool, South) (Lab)
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
Soulsby, Sir Peter (Leicester, South) (Lab)
Walker, Mr. Charles (Broxbourne) (Con)
Watkinson, Angela (Upminster) (Con)
Williams, Stephen (Bristol, West) (LD)
Wilson, Phil (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Nick Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 21 February 2008


[John Bercow in the Chair]

Education and Skills Bill

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

E&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 Children’s Services—Supplementary

Clause 33

Other 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.”’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 136.
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 Committee’s 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 year’s 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 year’s 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 34

Parenting 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 Minister’s 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 sibling—a 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.
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 person’s 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 parents—and that is what a parenting contract is—to set out quite clearly that they have a responsibility to ensure that their children get a reasonable night’s 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 children’s 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 Children’s 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 family’s 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. Gentleman’s 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 Minister’s 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.
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 person’s 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 gave—a young mother living in separate accommodation—it 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. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): Will the Minister give way?
The Chairman: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.
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.
Jim Knight: I am grateful, Mr. Bercow, and I know that interventions should be short.
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 ]
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Walker, Mr. Charles
Watkinson, Angela
Williams, Stephen
Barlow, Ms Celia
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Griffith, Nia
Knight, Jim
Lammy, Mr. David
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Wilson, Phil
Question accordingly negatived.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2008
Prepared 22 February 2008