Education and Skills Bill

My Lords, we absolutely agree with the intention behind Amendment No. 118. We expect local authorities to assess a parent’s needs before entering into a parenting contract. Guidance for local authorities in relation to parenting contracts for non-attendance of children under 16 already says that they should consult other agencies involved, identify issues and carry out an assessment using the common assessment framework. I refer the noble Baroness to paragraph 50 of the Guidance on Education-Related Parenting Contracts, Parenting Orders and Penalty Notices, which, in respect of pupils under 16, says: "““The LA [local authority] or governing body should be responsive to the needs of the parent in deciding what type of support they will provide. The issues behind the non-attendance or behaviour may be complex and the type of support required will depend on each individual case. The Common Assessment Framework … provides an appropriate framework for identifying these issues and we expect this to be the first assessment used””." There is a direct read-across to how we would expect local authorities to behave in respect of any parenting contracts under this Bill. Amendment No. 119, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, again highlights the issue of young carers. I said a good deal about them in our first debate on this issue. We understand the need to do a great deal more to support young carers. That is why we published on 10 June our new carers’ strategy, which takes forward recommendations of the National Carers Strategy. The 10-year strategy sets out the Government’s long-term vision for carers and how they will be supported. It includes short-, medium- and long-term plans. In the shorter term, to 2011, it sets out specific measures underpinned by £255 million investment designed to strengthen support for carers, including young carers, and provide the foundation for longer-term progress. These measures include £150 million to expand short breaks over the next two years, £38 million to strengthen support for carers to enter the job market and the piloting of annual health checks. On young carers, the strategy sets out its vision: "““Children and young people will be protected from inappropriate caring and have the support they need to learn, develop and thrive, to enjoy positive childhoods and to achieve against all the Every Child Matters outcome””." More specifically, it sets out £6.45 million worth of support for young carers to 2011, to include better prevention and the piloting of new, more effective models of support around the family, support to ensure that schools and other universal services identify problems of young carers early and encourage young carers to come forward, and £300,000 to embed best practice, ensuring this feeds into and informs major new developments, including targeted youth support and extended schools. So a good deal of concrete support is being provided to young carers. On the requirement by a local authority to satisfy itself that a young person does not have a reasonable excuse for not participating under Part 1 and, more particularly, Clause 39, I referred in our earlier debates to the letter from Jim Knight to David Laws, dated 13 February 2008. It specifically highlights as an example of what might constitute a reasonable excuse for non-participation, "““where a young person has caring responsibilities, they may not be able to participate or participate for as many hours as we would otherwise expect, until alternative care or learning provision that fits with those caring responsibilities is in place””." The amendment would prevent the provisions on parenting contracts coming into force until the recommendations of the new National Carers Strategy had been implemented. I reassure her that parenting contracts are voluntary. Where a parent agrees to enter into such a contract, this would be as a result of a face-to-face discussion and agreement about what it would include. We would not think it appropriate to prevent voluntary parenting contracts coming into force until the full recommendations of the National Carers Strategy have been implemented. I believe that they will be implemented; if they are not, this would in any case be a reasonable excuse for a young person with caring responsibilities to put forward. I hope that that deals with young carers. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, invited me to say more about Clauses 34 to 38 and why they should stand part of the Bill. I shall take them in turn. As we have discussed previously, the central responsibility to participate under this legislation lies with the young person. The Bill does not place explicit duties on parents, but they will be expected to help their child to participate and will be given a full range of information, advice and support about children's services and the options open to their child. Where a parent is refusing to let their child better his educational skills by participating or is struggling to support him appropriately, we believe that it should be possible to step in and help. That is why Clause 34 should stand part. Clause 35 makes it possible to intervene further where the parents themselves may be contributing to the reasons why a young person is not participating. If a full range of support and guidance has been given to the family and the young person nevertheless fails to participate, a parenting contract will usually be tried first, but ultimately a parenting order might be given. However, this would be considered only where it is expected to help enable the young person to participate without unduly disrupting the family. Of course it would not be appropriate to consider a parenting contract unless the parents themselves were judged to be a significant obstacle to the young person’s participation in education or training. It is possible to conceive of circumstances where that might be the case and the parent is part of the reason why, or the reason why, the young person is not participating. The parents may not be giving the child the opportunity to participate or they may, for example, be requiring the child to engage in full-time employment, perhaps in a family business, without giving them the opportunity to train.