Clause
35
Parenting
orders
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 35, page
19, line 1, leave out ‘, but need
not,’.
This is
a short amendment to question whether a phrase such as “but need
not” in a subsection that gives a permissive power for a
parenting order to include a particular requirement is proper
legislative language. Clearly, if the provision gives rise to a
permissive power rather than a requirement, it already is the case that
the power need not be used. The phrase is tautologous and rather folksy
in its drafting and, therefore, should be
removed.
Jim
Knight:
The phrase “but need not”, however
folksy, is commonly used in legislation. It is used in the provisions
in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in respect of parenting orders for
antisocial behaviour. In this Bill, it emphasises that the court has
discretion in respect of the requirements imposed in the
order.
It is
important that orders are tailored to meet the individual needs of the
parent so that he or she can most effectively deal with the behaviour
that is of concern. That discretion, which is made exceptionally clear
by the use of “may” and “but need not”,
reflects that. I would argue that the phrase should be retained, and I
hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his interesting
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I tabled it as an interesting amendment,
Mr. Bercow, but the matter has now been debated at length,
so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
37
Parenting
orders:
appeals
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 189, in
clause 37, page 19, line 31, at
end add—
‘(3) The grounds
for an appeal under subsection (1) shall include a lack of suitable
educational or training provision for the needs of the person to whom
this Part
applies.’.
The
clause allows for appeals against parenting orders to be made to the
Crown court. The amendment was tabled to enable the Minister to respond
to the concern expressed by the National Union of Teachers in paragraph
20 of its briefing. The amendment applies equally to clause 43 and the
grounds for appeal against attendance notices. The NUT says that the
Bill provides for appeals
“but does not appear to allow for
appeals on the grounds that the availability of the education or
training available is not suited to their
needs.”
The
Minister’s response to its concerns would be
appreciated.
9.30
am
Jim
Knight:
The amendment is unnecessary,
and I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who spoke on behalf of the National
Union of Teachers, will pass that comment on to his comrades. Clause 37
provides for parents a clear right of appeal to the Crown court against
the making of a parenting order, if they feel that one has been issued
unjustly. The grounds for such an appeal are currently unspecified and
unrestricted, so there is no need for the explicit provision in the
amendment.
A parent
who believed that the court making the parenting order was unjust to
conclude that such an order would be desirable in the interest of the
young person’s fulfilment of the duty—because, for
example, no suitable provision was available locally—might
appeal on that basis. Parents can appeal for whatever reason they
choose. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will agree
that the amendment is unnecessary, and withdraw
it.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am sure that my comrades at the
NUT, with whom we have a good relationship, which we hope will
continue, will be reassured by the Minister’s response, and I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
38
Parenting
contracts and parenting orders: further
provisions
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 188, in
clause 38, page 20, line 2, after
‘cases’, insert
‘, in particular those relating
to parents who are estranged from their
children.’.
The
clause gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about
parenting orders, and the amendment is intended to ensure that he would
include in such regulations limits on the powers of local authorities
to issue a parenting order in circumstances where the children are
estranged from their parents. A 16 or 17-year-old child may have left
home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster said, on bad terms
with their parents, and there may no longer be any contact. In those
circumstances it would be unreasonable of the local authority to impose
a parenting order on the parents, so the legislation should limit the
power to make such an order in those
circumstances.
Jim
Knight:
We have discussed at some length
the reasons for not excluding various, often vulnerable, groups from
different provisions, so I shall try to be brief. First, we do not want
to specify any individual groups in the Bill. Everyone will be catered
for, but it is not appropriate to introduce caveats in primary
legislation for a range of specific groups. Secondly, the intention of
the regulations is not to exclude any specific groups of parents. The
relevant part of the Bill draws on existing legislation for parenting
contracts and parenting orders, and the limitations of the regulations
in this instance are in reference to where people live, rather than the
exclusion of any groups.
The
reason for the regulation-making powers is to ensure that the system is
flexible enough to respond when a young person who fails to fulfil the
duty is resident in one local education authority, but their parent is
resident in another. The powers are also needed to set down further
details of what should be done in such cases.
To issue a parenting order, a
local authority will have to apply to the courts and provide
information on the background of the young person. That information
should include details of the relationship between the young person and
their parent, which would help to inform the local authority and the
court whether an order against that parent would be appropriate. A
parenting order can be made only where the court is satisfied that that
would be in the interest of getting the young person to participate.
Clearly, the court would have to be satisfied that an order against an
estranged parent was in the interest of getting the young person to
participate.
When we
make the regulations, judgments may be made about whether estranged
parents should be included, but it would be appropriate to consult on
matters relating to the regulations at the appropriate time, rather
than to pre-empt any decision now. On that basis, I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and
I just emphasise one point. The amendment would not exclude the group
that we are talking about from the general duty to participate, but it
does address the issue of whether a parenting order would have any
credibility when applied to a parent who has no contact with their own
children.
None the
less, I take on board the Minister’s persuasive points about the
court having to take into account the relationship between the parent
and the child before issuing a parenting order. I was also encouraged
by his comment that when he and the Department come to make the
regulations, judgments may be made about whether to include the
circumstances alluded to in the amendment. On the basis of those
helpful comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 38 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause
39
Failure
to fulfil duty under section 2: initial
steps
Stephen
Williams:
I beg to move amendment No. 67, in
clause 39, page 20, line 40, at
end insert ‘, and
(c) must make an
assessment of the person’s ability to benefit from the support
offered.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 68, in
clause 39, page 20, line 40, at
end insert ‘, and
(c) may grant a
waiver from this obligation where this seems in the best interests of
the
person.’.
No.
69, in
clause 40, page 21, line 35, at
end insert—
‘(2A) This
further notice must not be issued before the authority has made an
assessment of the person’s ability to comply with the initial
notice, and whether this meets their
needs.’.
Stephen
Williams:
My hon. Friend the Member for
Yeovil assured me that, given the glacial pace at which the Committee
had cantered—or, rather, not cantered—through previous
clauses, there was absolutely no chance that we would reach this stage
before 10 o’clock, when he is scheduled to join us. For the past
few minutes, I have therefore been somewhat panic-stricken and I have
been reading through the amendments that my hon. Friend drafted and
tabled. I will have to make my best
attempt— [
Interruption.
] Well, it
demonstrates palpable honesty in front of fellow Committee members. I
will try my best to interpret what my hon. Friend would have said had
he been here or had we been able to travel forward 20 minutes in time
to when he was
here.
The amendments
suggest that if the local authority is to offer support to the young
person to ensure that they can fulfil their obligations under the Bill
to attend compulsory education or training, some assessment should be
made of whether that support is appropriate. During our evidence
sessions a few weeks ago, we heard some interesting evidence from
various bodies, particularly the Prince’s Trust and Fairbridge,
which suggested that some of the people at whom the Bill is aimed in
the broadest sense—those not in education, employment or
training—lead quite dysfunctional lives. They might have an
addiction to drugs or alcohol or might have been in and out of the
criminal justice system. The support offered to them by the local
authority might not, therefore, necessarily address the fundamental
needs that they have in their daily lives, and that might be one of the
underlying reasons why they are unable to fulfil the obligation in the
Bill to attend college.
Obviously, if someone has an
addiction to heroin, or some other part of their life is dysfunctional,
attending college or workplace training will not be at the forefront of
their minds, and their attendance might not be welcomed by the
institution or employer anyway. The compulsion introduced by the Bill
will clearly not have the desired effect of ensuring that that group of
people have a measurable level of educational attainments by the time
that they are 18.
It
will be clear from our earlier discussions and the questions that we
asked during our evidence sessions that my hon. Friend and I would
prefer these young people with dysfunctional lives to be given more
access to the support services that would make a tangible differences
to their circumstances, such as more drug rehabilitation and treatment
and more investment in mental health, if such problems are the reason
why they cannot fulfil their duty to participate. The purpose of the
amendments is to put in place a requirement to assess whether young
people’s health needs—I see drug addiction as a health
problem—or mental health needs have been properly dealt with
before further duties are placed on them. Our aim is to ensure that the
relevant support is there so that the local authority can take an
holistic approach. I have done the best that I can in the
circumstances.
Jim
Knight:
It is a pleasure to move to chapter 5, which is
headed “Attendance Notices”. I wonder whether the hon.
Member for Bristol, West would like to issue an attendance notice on
the hon. Member for Yeovil so that he can speak to his own
amendments.
The amendments return us to
discussions that we had at some length earlier in the Committee process
about the support that should be offered to young people found to be
not participating. Its intention is one that I share, as I have already
set out: no young person should enter the enforcement system if they
have unmet support needs.
Amendment No. 67 would mean
that, before a local authority could give an initial notice, in
addition to what the clause already requires, they would need to assess
the person’s ability to benefit from the support offered. I
believe that the intention of this amendment is already reflected in
subsections (5)(a) and (b) and (6)(b). For the benefit of the
Committee, I will briefly run through those provisions. Subsection
(5)(a) states that the local authority
“must take all reasonable steps
to secure that relevant support is
offered”.
We have
discussed that at considerable length, including what it means in
respect of particular groups of young people. Subsection (5)(b) states
that the local authority
“may not give the notice unless
satisfied that the person has been afforded an opportunity to take
advantage of the support offered.”
That, in my view, requires precisely the
sort of assessment the amendment would insert into the clause. A local
authority could not be satisfied that the young person has had the
opportunity to benefit from the support offered if it considered that
the young person in question did not have the ability to benefit from
the support offered.
Subsection (6) then states
that the local authority can begin enforcement action only if the young
person is failing to fulfil the duty without reasonable excuse. I have,
at the request of the absent hon. Member for Yeovil, written to the
Committee about my thinking on “reasonable excuse”. I am
sure that he will have a reasonable excuse for the hon. Member for
Bristol, West. I hope that he will understand that as we are five years
away from implementing the provisions of the Bill, I wish to use that
time to consult fully with organisations such as those from which we
heard during our evidence sessions and which the hon. Member for
Bristol, West, speaking with alacrity on his feet, mentioned. My
thinking will undoubtedly develop as a result of that
consultation.
The relevant
support referred to in subsection (5)(a) would be provided by
Connexions, which is based on its personal advisers developing a
sufficient understanding of a young person’s needs in order to
assess what support might be most appropriate to meet those needs.
Subsections (5) and (6) would mean that a local authority will not
begin enforcement unless they have provided the right
support.
9.45
am
Amendment
No. 68 returns us to the question of a waiver certificate, which we
debated at length in relation to clause 1, many moons ago. I believe
there was an eclipse of the moon last night and it almost feels as
though we were discussing clause 1 at the time of the previous eclipse.
As I made clear to the Committee then, we do not support issuing any
type of waiver to
specific groups of young people to exempt them from the duty. The hon.
Member for Yeovil withdrew his amendment that first introduced the
concept of a waiver certificate in relation to clause 1, and I hope
that this colleague the hon. Member for Bristol, West will do the same
here. I know that he does not mean to suggest that young people should
be denied the opportunities offered by participation in education and
training. As
I understand it, amendment No. 69 would require local authorities to
conduct an assessment of a young person’s ability to comply with
an attendance notice before any such notice is issued. I do not believe
that that would add anything to the caveats relating to attendance
notices in clauses 41 and 42. The provisions in the Bill will ensure
that before issuing an attendance notice, a local authority must
satisfy itself that the named provision meets the young person’s
needs. It will also have the knowledge of the matters that an
attendance panel would take into account in considering any appeal by a
young person against an attendance notice. The attendance panel
provides an important independent check on the local authority’s
actions, which I am sure that we will discuss fairly shortly. I look
forward to that and hope, in the light of my reassurances, that the
hon. Member for Bristol, West will withdraw the
amendment.
Stephen
Williams:
I shall keep my remarks brief. Having heard the
Minister’s assurances, I have only one option: I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn
Clause
39 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
