Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee debated amendments on school uniform affordability and PFAS chemical safety, then turned to the scope and purpose of the new register for children not in school.
L(Two amendments in this group tackle something too often overlooked: the cost of school uniforms. Clause 35 should go further by imposing a statutory monetary cap on branded items and extending VAT zero-rating to all compulsory uniform items for pupils up to 16. In 2024, around 4.5 million children lived in poverty; the average secondary uniform already costs over £92, and one West Yorkshire school required 10 branded items unavailable anywhere but the school supplier. Eighteen per cent of families borrowed money to pay for uniforms in 2023. Voluntary DfE guidance has reached its limit — 70% of secondary schools still require five or more branded items. A legislative cap, reviewed annually, and removing the absurd VAT that taxes a blazer in size 38 but not size 36 would be fair, enforceable, and cost no child their dignity.My Lords, education is frequently described as a great leveller: a powerful force to close the gap between opportunity and background, between privilege and disadvantage. As someone who experienced that divide, I can say that unless we tackle entrenched inequalities that quietly shape a child’s journey before they even enter the classroom, that idea will remain stubbornly out of reach. That is why I will speak on two amendments to the Bill. They might seem modest in terms of admin but they carry immense significance for families across the country. Amendments 195 and 201 have been tabled alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. They focus on a subject that is too often overlooked in our education debates: the affordability of school uniforms. Specifically, I propose a statutory monetary cap on the cost of branded school uniform items and an extension of VAT zero rating to include all compulsory school uniform items for pupils up to the age of 16. These are not abstract proposals; they are informed by data from the Child Poverty Action Group. In 2024, approximately 4.5 million children lived in poverty, with 2.9 million living in deep poverty, meaning that their household’s mean income was below 50% of the median income. The amendments are also informed by personal experiences and by listening closely to families, teachers and welfare advisers who witness the strain at first hand. I grew up in inner city Sheffield in the 1980s, a working-class child in a household that often struggled to meet ends. My father, like many, worked in the local steel industry. When he lost his job, we lost our financial security. I know intimately what it feels like to rely on free school meals and I benefited from school clothing grants, not as a charity but as a lifeline. The grants provided by Sheffield City Council, at the time under the leadership of David Blunkett—now the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—meant that I could walk to school on my first day wearing a jack…
Five branded items — or six with a tie — is a more workable limit than three for secondary schools. A blazer bought from a school supplier is genuinely better quality and often cheaper than a supermarket equivalent once durability is factored in. I declare my interest as a state academy teacher in east London.My lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 196 and 197 and declare, as ever, that I am a teacher at a state academy in east London. Before I talk to these amendments, I want to rather cheekily add a little thing. Given that the Minister kindly committed to getting the Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance out in good time for the inset days in August, is there any progress on the recent news that the framework has been delayed and is going to be published only this month? There is a lot of concern among our safeguarding heads about this uncertainty, and I wonder if the Minister could write to me about that.
If a strict branded-item cap is imposed, over 50% of schools say they would remove PE kit from their uniform policy altogether — and that risks real falls in sports participation, especially among teenage girls. PE uniform levels the playing field and removes pressure to wear expensive branded sportswear. We should not cut the cost of uniform at the expense of school sport.My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 199ZA in my name. It was previously brought forward by my noble friend Lord Moynihan who, regrettably, cannot be here today, despite his enthusiasm for the subject. I will keep my comments short, as much has been said already on the subject. This probing amendment goes further than my noble friend Lady Barran’s Amendment 199, out of concern that the Government’s proposals could lead to some schools excluding PE kit altogether as a branded item. This could disincentivise schools and pupils from meeting the Prime Minister’s commitment, made with the Lionesses, that every child across the country should benefit from and have equal access to high-quality PE and sport. A survey by the Schoolwear Association carried out among school leaders found that over 50% of schools indicated that they would remove PE kits from their uniform policy if a strict cap were imposed, risking reduced sports participation due to the pressure to wear the latest brands, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, particularly among teenage girls. Worryingly, it believes that the Bill, as drafted, would lead to increased PE costs, as mentioned, and pose a risk to sports participation in our schools. We know why PE uniforms are important: they promote a more equitable environment for students, and inclusivity. Importantly, they remove the pressure to wear the trendy—and, usually, more expensive—kit and create a level playing field. They promote safety, equality and a sense of unity among students, and they enhance school spirit. Schools need to foster a sense of community and belonging. I of course support the ambition of keeping the cost of school uniforms down, but not at the expense of reducing participation in sport and physical activity in our schools. At a time when we are seeing an increase in the obesity figures for children and concerns about their lifestyles and well-being, we should not put in place barriers to their getting active. In fact, we n…
I support allowing five branded items rather than three. My own experience moving my son between two London academies in the Easter break showed the difference sharply — one school required a jersey, blazer, tie, two PE shirts, two pairs of PE shorts, a house t-shirt, two pairs of monogrammed sports socks, a rugby shirt and a football shirt; the other needed only half as many. Three items plus a tie risks parents buying items that don't quite match the colour worn by the child sitting next to theirs. The badge on a PE shirt doesn't make sport more or less attractive — PE is compulsory anyway — but standardisation matters for identity and for reducing peer pressure.My Lords, I am in favour of Amendment 196, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. That may surprise my colleagues on the Front Bench—to some extent, it surprises me—but I will speak from personal, recently lived experience. My son is in year 9 at an academy in London. In the Easter break, he moved from one academy to another, so we had to have a complete change of uniform in that period. It was interesting to compare the two schools, because one required considerably more for its badged uniform than the other. The school he originally attended needed a jersey, a blazer, a tie, two PE shirts, two pairs of PE shorts, a house t-shirt, two pairs of monogrammed sports socks, a rugby shirt and a football shirt. The school he has moved to requires just a jersey, a blazer, a tie, one PE shirt, one pair of PE shorts, a rugby shirt and a football shirt. I accept the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, made on her amendment—which was originally brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—about encouraging young people to be as active as they can in sport. Being active in school may, on many occasions, lead to being active in clubs and societies outwith school; that is self-evident. However, I do not believe that having the school badge on what they wear really makes any difference. I am therefore not in favour of necessitating sports gear being badged. If boys and girls represent their school, when they play against another school they clearly need to have a jersey with the school badge on it and with proper school colours. But if they are just playing rugby and football, they can do what I did at school: there was a blue top and a white top, which were interchangeable depending on what team you were in that week in preparation for matches at the weekend, and then you got the school top for the actual match on Saturday. Unless you are actually representing the school, you do not need anything with the school’s name on the breast—that would be unnecessary. I d…
I support all the uniform amendments: schools need more flexibility than Clause 35 currently allows. My amendment would carve out branded items that are provided or lent to pupils free of charge from the three-item cap — covering sponsored sports kit and, crucially, the Combined Cadet Force uniform. The CCF is an activity facilitated by the school; as I read Clause 35, a required CCF uniform would count against the limit. The Ministry of Defence welcomed an academic report in May 2025 and confirmed plans to expand CCFs in state schools — that aspiration and this clause pull in opposite directions.My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust. Before I speak to my amendment, I offer my support to all the uniform amendments proposed so far by noble Lords. Schools need a bit more flexibility around uniforms than is allowed for by the Bill. My amendment, much like Amendments 195A and 199ZA, would caveat the ban on schools being allowed to mandate three items of a branded uniform, excluding branded items that have been provided or lent to pupils free of charge. Why? One reason, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Sater, is that some schools have sport kit sponsors which provide more than three branded items free of charge. The more important reason is that this prohibition would throw up an obstacle to the expansion of the Combined Cadet Force programme in state schools, which the Government have said they are in favour of. My reading of Clause 29 is that the prohibition would apply to CCF troops, because it says: “For the purposes of subsection (1)”— the limit on the number of branded items a pupil is required to have— “a pupil is required to have a branded item of school uniform for use during a … year if the pupil is required to have it … to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during that year”. A school-based combined cadet force would be an activity facilitated by the school. I was surprised to see this clause appear as written, because an article in the UK Defence Journal published on 29 May 2025 began: “The Ministry of Defence has welcomed the findings of a recent academic study highlighting the positive impact of school-based Cadet Forces, and confirmed plans to expand Combined Cadet Forces (CCFs) in state schools as part of a broader effort to improve youth development and opportunity”. When responding to a Parliamentary Question, from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, on 28 May, shortly after this report was published, the Minister of State for Defence, the noble Lord, Lor…
- The CCF argument only has weight if the school makes CCF membership compulsory for all pupils — if it's opt-in, the uniform wouldn't be mandated for participation and wouldn't count against the limit.
I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord said, as I always do. I prefer the politics of his father, the author of the 1945 Labour manifesto, rather more than his own, but that is something else. The point he is making about the Combined Cadet Force is interesting. Earlier, I mentioned my son; he is in the air cadets, not associated with a school. The Combined Cadet Force should be available in schools, but it would not be compulsory. It would surely be something that boys or girls would opt in to. Only in a situation where the school made it mandatory that all children join the Combined Cadet Force would the argument he is advancing have any weight.
- As I read the clause, the cap applies to items required to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school — not just items mandated for every pupil. If a CCF uniform is required to take part in CCF, that would still fall within the prohibition. I hope the Minister will clarify.
As I read it, the clause does not just limit the prohibition to items mandated by the school for every pupil. If those are mandatory for an activity facilitated by the school, I believe this prohibition would still apply. That is my reading of the clause, but perhaps the Minister will correct me on that point when she responds. To sum up, I welcome the Government’s intention here, which is to avoid schools placing excessive financial burdens on low-income families, but making an exception for items given or lent to pupils would not impose any additional burdens on those families, so I cannot see how the Government could possibly oppose my amendment or the other similar amendments hoping to achieve the same purpose.
Schools should be required to provide second-hand uniform — 35% of schools still don't offer it, and more than 1.4 million quality items are lost each year, a waste of parents' money and bad for the environment. On a separate point: PFAS 'forever chemicals' are added to school uniform fabrics for stain-resistance that wears off after 10–20 washes, leaving a long-term health risk with no lasting benefit. France and Denmark have already banned PFAS in clothing. The Government should ban them from school uniforms.My Lords, I tabled two amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 202, follows on in a complementary manner to the amendment moved so excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, because it addresses the cost issue of uniforms by asking for the mandating of second-hand uniforms in schools. I am sure the Minister will say that there is already statutory guidance encouraging schools to provide secondary sales of school uniforms, but her own department did a survey in 2023 and found that some 65% of parents said that their schools provided second-hand sales. That is a significant minority of schools that are not providing it. It has been estimated that more than 1.4 million quality items of school uniform are lost every year, which is a loss to parents in savings, a cost to us all when local authorities have to deal with the disposal of those uniforms and a cost to the environment in dealing with the plastics and the carbon that comes from disposing of those garments. In this amendment, I call for the mandating of schools to provide second-hand uniforms. If the Minister is not able to agree to that at the end of noble Lords’ remarks, I hope that in the refresh of the upcoming sustainability and climate change strategy she might think about the issue of uniforms, which was not in the previous strategy. Clearly, looking at the affordability of uniforms and sustainability could a be a win-win for parents and for the environment. My second amendment, Amendment 202A, deals with a slightly different issue: the health impacts of school clothing on young people and the inclusion of forever chemicals, PFAS, in much of the clothing that young people are wearing. They are called forever chemicals because they do not break down in the environment. There is now emerging evidence of significant negative health impacts in terms of cancer, impacts on fertility and, crucially for young people, neuro development. These PFAS are mainly picked up by people through the skin. For young…
Jeremy Grantham — one of the world's leading funders of climate and environmental research — has turned his entire attention to PFAS because of how serious the risk is. PFAS are now found in breast milk, placenta, and plants; they accumulate every wash cycle. American Airlines has been sued after crew developed serious illnesses from cheap PFAS uniforms. Research in Denmark found prenatal contact with PFAS fabrics reduced IQ in children. France is banning all school uniforms containing PFAS. We can stop this — and we should, now.My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 202A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett. This is a fantastically important amendment, and I will be very distressed if the Government do not seize the moment as the knowledge comes into view about what these kinds of chemicals in cheap clothes provide and are putting into our children’s systems. Jeremy Grantham, who many people may know, has been one of the main funders of climate change research across the world over the last 40 years and indeed was one of the funders behind the LSE and Nick Stern report. I met him about three weeks ago and he said he is no longer providing climate change funding, largely because he thinks it is a more or less foregone conclusion that things are not going well. He has turned his entire industry and scientific might behind looking at PFAS and the chemicals that are in not just our clothing but our soils. Let us look specifically at clothing around the world. American Airlines has recently been sued because it produced very cheap uniforms for its stewards and stewardesses. They have started to develop incredible ranges of different skin illnesses and internal illnesses. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, found, research in Denmark has shown that prenatal contact to cheaply made fabrics with PFAS in them has led to reductions in IQ among children. France is banning all school uniforms containing PFAS from next year. Interestingly, Fidra, a big company that works on and looks at the environmental impact of chemicals, says that people want these chemicals in clothing because it is very easy to wash, it dries almost immediately and you never need to iron it. But interestingly, it discovered that people treat these clothes in exactly the same way as they treat something of better quality. Every time you wash it—it is not just when you put it on your skin—bits come off in the washing machine. They are now in circulation: they are in breast milk, placenta and our pl…
The PFAS case is overwhelming: every person in the Netherlands has multiple types of PFAS in their blood above healthy limits; microplastics have been found in human semen and female reproductive fluids this week; France bans all PFAS-treated textiles by 2030. We are mandating children to wear this clothing — the state should apply the same precautionary principle we apply to the environment. My second amendment addresses hair discrimination: pupils must not be barred from classes or school activities because of their hairstyle, unless there is a genuine health and safety reason. Bias against Afro hair has become ingrained in parts of the education system.My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Parminter. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, just made an extremely powerful case for Amendment 202A, to which I attached my name. In the interests of time, I shall mostly focus on the two amendments that appear in my name in this group, which are Amendments 202B and 484. Amendment 202B is essentially an expansion of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. She focused on the health impacts of PFAS; I am focusing on the broader issues of the health of school uniforms. This amendment “seeks to allow the Secretary of State to regulate school uniforms, given the human and environmental health risks they represent”. That is not written in the amendment, which is written broadly to have a review within a year, but I say that in the explanatory statement and that I am particularly thinking about “artificial fibres and chemical constituents” —so it includes PFAS, but is much broader than that. This is actually a narrower version of an amendment I tabled to the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill that was debated on 11 December. I included a great deal of evidence in that that I do not have time to include today, but I said then that these products, chemicals, plastics and other substances are accumulating in our bodies day by day. That picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott: we have a cocktail effect of bodies being bombarded from our clothing, our environments and our food. We are talking about young people, who are going to live for decades, accumulating more and more PFAS and more and more plastics in their bodies. This is particularly important when we think about school uniforms, because we are forcing pupils to wear them. This is the state mandating that our children wear clothing which is highly likely to be doing them harm. Think about how it will go from the clothing into people’s bodies: for a blazer, a pupil is running for the school bus or r…
The problems are real but the solution in Clause 35 is a heavy-handed Whitehall diktat. Where does the 'magic number' of three come from? Iron-on branded logos can be bought for £1.16 each. The Schoolwear Association reports uniform costs have undershot inflation by 34% over the last three years — the average secondary uniform cost £232 in 2014-15 and is around £94 today. Existing guidance already works: Inspiration Trust's policy covering 11,000 pupils across 18 schools has produced zero complaints about uniform costs in three years. Instead of primary legislation, give academy trust members a specific duty to scrutinise and approve uniform cost policies, and mirror that via directors of children's services for maintained schools.My Lords, I am taking a slightly different approach with my Amendment 200, which relates to school uniform policy. It is important to recognise that a tiny minority of schools use the cost of uniforms as an unpleasant instrument to screen out children in poor families—I am not in denial of that. However, that relates to perhaps 1% or 2% of the 20,000 or more state schools. Nor am I in denial that we should do something about it. A lot has been done, which I will come to in a moment. Nevertheless, the solution proposed in this clause is heavy-handed and bureaucratic. It is a classic example of the dead hand of the state intervening in an entirely impractical way to cause more harm than good. Does Whitehall really know how many branded items a school would like to use? Where does the magic number of “three” come from? For example, schools encouraging sport and competing with others are trying to foster an identity, and branded sportswear is a basic part of that. Have the bureaucrats found out how much a branded iron-on logo costs? A quick search of the internet suggests that you can buy them, custom designed, for £1.16 each. How can we do this? I refer to my interest as the chairman of Inspiration Trust. Let me quote some of the bullet points from our uniform policy: “We will make sure our school uniforms … are available at a reasonable cost … Provide the best value for money for parents/carers. We will do this by … Carefully considering whether any items with distinctive characteristics are necessary … Limiting any items with distinctive characteristics where possible. For example, by only asking that the blazer, worn over the jumper, features the school logo … Limiting items with distinctive characteristics to low-cost or long-lasting items, such as ties … Considering cheaper alternatives to school-branded items, such as logos that can be ironed on, as long as this doesn’t compromise quality and durability … Avoiding specific requirements for items pupils could wear…
The case for PFAS and chemical controls actually argues for more uniform standardisation, not less — standardised uniform would be far easier to regulate and monitor for content. On CCF: if Clause 35 operates as Lord Young describes, that's an obvious easy concession for the Government to make.My Lords, I fully understand the Government’s desire to limit the cost here, but I support the principle behind most of these amendments, particularly those of my noble friend Lord Agnew and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, made an excellent point, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that if uniform is not standardised, parents with students who can afford it may well “show off” through the clothes which their children wear. That is why we ban trainers in the schools in the multi-academy trusts that I chair, and why they are banned in most schools. We want all our children to feel equal. As the Minister previously responsible for the school cadet programme, and as for the point that my noble friend Lord Young made, if the clause works as he says it does, this would seem to me an obvious and easy give by the Government. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on this point. As for the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Bennett, I thought they made an excellent case for more, rather than less, uniform, because that would be the easiest way to regulate and monitor what it is made from.
Uniform disputes are usually not about branded items at all but about a child's reluctance to wear an approved style. Household expenditure on clothing as a share of total spending has fallen substantially over 50 years — it has probably never been cheaper to clothe a family. The amendments from Lords Hampton, Young, and Baroness Barran, and Amendment 201, all have merit.My Lords, I apologise for being a minute or two late arriving in the Chamber. I support Amendments 196 to 199 proposed, respectively, by the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 201, from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed. If these are not accepted, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and Amendment 195 from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, also have considerable merit. Every autumn, there is a rash of stories about children being sent home for not being in the correct uniform. However, most often, these disputes are about not branded items but a child’s reluctance to wear something in the style that has been approved for all pupils. It is encouraging to note that household expenditure on clothing and footwear as a proportion of household spending has fallen substantially over the past 50 years. In historical terms, it has probably never been cheaper to clothe a family, though I note the concerns that have been expressed about cheap synthetic fabrics and finishes.
We all agree uniforms matter and must be affordable — but this policy is unworkable. What happens to the £3.20 branded book bag that infant schools give to encourage reading? That would use up one of the three permitted items. If a school wants extra branded items it can simply write to parents making them 'optional' — the Government can't stop that. On sport: if two schools both play in red, one has to change colour, which under a mandatory-kit rule is nonsensical. The only real solutions are VAT cuts on uniform and either a cost cap or a revived school clothing grant — the approach Lord Mohammed proposes.My Lords, I think there are two things on which all in this Chamber can agree. First, school uniforms are important. I think the phrase used by my noble friend Lord Mohammed was that they give confidence to learning, and I think they give a sense of identity to young people. That is the first thing that we can all agree on. Secondly, we can all agree that we have to ensure that school uniforms are affordable and that parents of children from poorer families do not feel discriminated against. I want to give two practical experiences. I should declare an interest as a governor of the King’s Leadership Academy, Wavertree. My first practical example is that, when I was a deputy head teacher, the school governors did not believe in a school uniform. That was not a particularly good decision, because young people from well-off families would wear the latest trainers and show off the latest T-shirts, designer gear and so on. My second example is my own daughter. She went to King David High School and had a very simple uniform of a sweatshirt, a polo shirt and a grey skirt. A new head came along, who was anxious to make the school stand out, and the uniform changed to a kilt, a blue blouse, a V-neck pullover with the school colours in the V-neck, a blazer with a badge and a tie. The cost went through the roof, so that was clearly stupid. If you want to deal with this issue, the current proposals from the Government are a bit of a dog’s dinner—or Eton mess might be a better phrase. I just do not see how it is going to work. My first question to the Minister is: what about the poor old book bag? In my school, infants carry their little, green, nylon, £3.20 book bags and it means so much to those children; they encourage them to value books and to read. That would be included as one of the branded items and presumably would go. Primary and infant heads would have to decide whether the book bag is going on the altar of correctness in terms of uniform. My second concern is that…
The Government committed in their manifesto to cut uniform costs by limiting branded items — but listening to this debate, one wonders if 'limiting the number of branded items' was quite what they had in mind. The Bill's definition of 'school uniform' is very broad — it includes any extracurricular clothing with a distinctive characteristic even without a logo if it's available only from a particular supplier. One-third of primary schools and seven in ten secondary schools would need to remove compulsory branded items just to comply. My amendments seek to give schools more discretion. Cost is the right measure — Lord Agnew's amendment, which focuses on cost and pins responsibility clearly to academy trust members and local authorities, is stronger than a numerical cap.My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 195A, 195B, 198 and 199, and Amendment 199ZA, from my noble friend Lady Sater, which I have signed. We all recognise that the Government committed in their manifesto to bringing down the cost of school uniform by limiting the number of branded items of uniform and PE kit that schools require. I wonder whether those who wrote the manifesto might now, having listened to this debate, wish that they had phrased it slightly differently and just stopped at committing to bringing down the cost of school uniforms full stop. The amendments in this group, as we have heard, all seek to find ways to give schools more discretion and flexibility in the uniform they require pupils to wear, particularly regarding branded items, while meeting the Government’s goal of keeping costs as low as possible. As we have heard, Amendments 202A and 202B seek to limit the environmental damage from branded uniforms. We have heard, very eloquently, from across the Committee, about the value of uniform, the sense of community it brings, the safety it provides for children travelling to and from school, the fact that it saves parents money and encourages participation in sport, and—a new one to add to my list that appeals to me a lot—the subtle rebellion point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. The Government’s approach raises a number of questions, particularly given the recent Private Member’s Bill, now an Act, passed under the last Government and sponsored in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who is not in her place, and the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Agnew said, the current guidance states: “Schools should keep the use of branded items to a minimum … ensure that second-hand uniforms are available” and avoid using items that are available only from a single supplier. The guidance is very clear: “Parents should not have to think about the cost of a school uniform when choosing which school(s) to apply for. Therefore, sc…
Uniforms play an important role in schools, and we are committed to cutting their cost by limiting branded items so parents can buy more from high street retailers. A cost cap is not simpler — it would force schools to review their policies annually and could increase their reliance on specific suppliers, reducing competition and choice. On the CCF point: the measure does not restrict schools from offering or loaning branded items; those items are simply not counted against the limit unless they are compulsory. On PFAS: the Government is working across government considering the risks from PFAS in all textiles, not just school uniforms; existing guidance already asks schools to consider sustainability and ethical supply chains.My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in group one. Just to be clear, the Government believe that uniforms have an important role to play in our schools, for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined, but we are committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. This is why we have chosen to support families by limiting in this Bill the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will enable parents to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, allowing them the flexibility to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances. On Amendment 195 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, we want to ensure that any action we take provides schools and parents with clarity and offers parents choice in how to manage the costs of school uniforms. Ensuring that parents can buy more items from a range of retailers gives them that flexibility. The argument has been made that a cost cap is simpler than the Government’s proposals. I cannot see that argument. A cost cap would mean that schools would have to review uniform policies annually, as the noble Lord said, to ensure that they remained within the cap. It could mean schools changing their uniforms more frequently, thereby increasing overall costs and restricting choice for parents. A cost cap would be complex for schools and suppliers to administer, and the need to meet a particular price for items could also increase a school’s reliance on specific suppliers, whereas a competitive market benefits all parties, allowing parents to take advantage of lower prices, better-quality goods and services, new and innovative products, and greater choice. Responding to the points made about the school uniform grant, we recognise that parents are struggling with the cost of uniforms—that is why we are bringing forward these provisions—and that in England some local authorities provide discretionary grants to help with buying school uniforms in c…
- In the case of cadets the uniform is required — it's not genuinely optional. And if the school provides sports kit for free, is wearing it for a match really optional?
I am sorry, perhaps the Minister is about to come to this: that is what normally happens when I stand up. I think my noble friend was saying that in the CCF, you have to wear the CCF uniform. Similarly, if you are representing the school in a sports competition, I am not sure it is really optional. But maybe the Minister is about to clarify that.
- For sports competitions, a school can loan branded kit without making it compulsory — the kit is available but optional for that activity. On cadets, we don't intend the legislation to prevent cadet participation and will make that clear in guidance.
On the sports competition, I think it is wholly possible to envisage that the school would provide a set of branded uniform for the school sports team, while not suggesting that it was compulsory to wear it. Of course, I understand all the arguments for wanting to have a clear identity for the school while you are doing sports. On the point about cadets, which I was specifically coming to—sorry, I will make one other point before I come to cadets. There is a challenge. We do not want to place an undue burden on schools by suggesting that they should routinely be supplying additional, expensive, branded uniform items to their pupils at no cost. The point about cadets is important. We do not intend the legislation to prevent cadets, and we will consider how to make that clear. Our view is that the legislation does not do that, but we understand the point being made and we will ensure that that is made clear, because of the benefits of students being able to take part in cadets in the way in which the noble Lord outlined.
- So for cadets, a uniform provided free is acceptable — but for a sports competition, wearing the school's kit is going to be 'optional'? Those two positions are completely inconsistent and unworkable.
Just to be clear on this, I heard the Minister say that, in the case of cadets, where wearing a uniform is required and it is given for free, the Government will clarify that that is acceptable. She also said that she does not want to place undue burdens on schools, understandably, but, in a sports competition, whether pupils wear the kit that is provided for free is going to be optional. That feels unworkable and very inconsistent.
- Schools can loan branded competition kit; as long as wearing it isn't compulsory, it sits outside the three-item cap. If it is made compulsory, it counts as one of the three.
What I said was that this measure does not prevent schools providing or loaning branded uniform items, such as competition kit, but, if that were to be compulsory, that of course would need to be included in the three branded items. As long as those items are optional, I do not think it is too difficult to envisage that schools might be able to make that work.
- So if the school provides a blue shirt and the match is arranged in advance, but a pupil turns up in red and causes chaos, that's fine — but telling pupils 'you must all wear blue' breaks the rules? Please, before Report, sit down with people who actually run schools and work through whether this is at all practical.
So if the shirt provided by the school is blue and the opposition plays in red, and this has all been arranged in advance, and some pupils decide to be difficult and turn up in red, which will create chaos, that is okay, but if you say “You’ve all got to turn up in blue”, that is breaking the rules. It does not sound very practical. I ask the Minister to take a bit of time with people who run schools and officials to see whether we can work our way through this in a practical way, while at the same time trying to make sure that all children are treated equally and that we limit the costs as far as we can.
- I'm willing to keep thinking about school sports. When I played hockey we wore bibs to distinguish teams with similar colours — this isn't an impossible problem to solve. Let's come back to it.
I am certainly willing to continue thinking about the issue of school sports, because it is very much not the intention of the Government to prevent the loaning of branded items for school sports. On the example that the noble Lord mentioned, in my day, when I played hockey, if we ended up playing against a school with a similarly coloured kit, we wore bibs to distinguish ourselves. My point is that I do not think it is impossible to overcome this. Let us come back to it. I take the point that noble Lords have made here.
- When the Minister said the Government is 'working across government' on PFAS, what exactly is happening? Is there a review? Is it specific to school uniforms or all clothing? Those of us who are concerned need something concrete to track.
My Lords, when the Minister said that we are working across government, what actually is happening? Is there a review? Is there something specific about school uniforms? Is it just about PFAS? Can we get some details so that we who are concerned can keep an eye on it?
- The cross-government work looks at PFAS risks in all textiles, not just school uniforms; I'll provide further details on how that work is being carried out. On hair discrimination: existing equalities law and EHRC guidance already protect pupils — I won't accept a statutory amendment when guidance is already clear, though schools must also be able to uphold their behaviour policies.
The point I was making was that it relates to all clothes and is considering the risks from PFAS used in textiles, but I will be happy to provide further information about how that work is being carried out. In the interim, our statutory guidance is already clear that it is important that schools consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts. I know that many high street retailers already offer school uniforms without PFAS treatments for many of the reasons that noble Lords have outlined today. Furthermore, UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market. We already have robust systems in place to identify the impact of chemicals under the UK registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—UK REACH—and to regulate them effectively. On Amendment 484 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, discrimination has no place in our schools or, in fact, in society. Our guidance is clear that in setting uniform and appearance policies, including on hair, we expect schools to meet their existing obligations under equalities law not to discriminate unlawfully. Guidance also already exists for schools on preventing hair discrimination, published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The noble Baroness had a lengthy list of cases. I do not know the details of all those, but I think it is reasonable for schools to develop and implement behaviour policies, to uphold school rules and to use sanctions that are fair and proportionate, and that could well also relate to uniform and expected appearance within schools.
- We are deeply concerned about pupils not in school — yet some children are being excluded for their hairstyle. Every exclusion for hair is a loss of education the child can never recover.
Would the Minister care to address my point about the fact that we have great concern about pupils not in school, yet we are excluding them for this reason? It is reducing the amount of education that pupils are getting.
- Will the Minister reconsider the branded infant book bag? It means so much to young children — it encourages them to value books and reading — and it shouldn't have to be sacrificed as one of three permitted branded items.
Will the Minister go away and consider the fate of the branded book bag, which means so much to primary and infant schools? It should not be included as part of the three, because it is a way of encouraging reading and literacy in our schools.
- I enjoyed book bags too — but a school that feels strongly about them can include them as one of the three branded items the legislation allows.
I also very much enjoyed the bookbags my boys carried backwards and forwards to school, but I am not sure that trumps what the Government are trying to achieve in reducing the cost of school uniforms. Of course, any school that felt that was crucial could of course include it in the three branded items in the legislative proposals.
- We all want to reduce the cost of school uniforms — we just have different ideas about how. That's what this House is for. The Government is showing a spirit of reflection on other policies; I hope that spirit comes down the Corridor here, and that before Report they give serious consideration to the amendments that may achieve the goal more effectively.
From the debate we have just had, It is clear noble Lords have a keen interest in school uniforms. I am going to keep my submission brief. I thank everyone; I think we are all on the same page in the sense that we want to reduce the cost of school uniforms. We have different ideas, but that is what your Lordships’ House is about; we come here together to improve legislation from the other place. I am keen that we pursue this. I see that in the other place the Government are in a spirit of reflection and review of policies. I hope that spirit wheels its way down the Corridor to here. Then we can also say that, yes, the Government have an ambition of reducing the cost, but we also have ideas that warrant looking at. They may well be ideas that work better. I hope the Government think about it as we move to the next stage of the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 195.
Home education is an area that works well but is often misunderstood. My amendments focus on one specific aspect: flexi-schooling, where a child splits their time between home and a registered school. Flexi-schooling works well in practice but the Bill seems to require such children to appear on the children-not-in-school register, creating duplicate oversight where the school is already in the best position to judge whether the child's overall education is suitable. On the broader home education register: the proposals in Clause 38 are sweeping — I hope we can examine them carefully.My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 202C and 227A, in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Wei. We are now, at last, beginning consideration of the large number of amendments on home education. It is a pleasure and an honour to be able to kick off what I think is going to be a lengthy and important discussion. The proposals on home education are an important part of this Bill and have perhaps got less attention than other aspects of it. I guess that is because most people have been to school and not many people have any direct experience of home education. As a result, it is a sector that does work well but is often misunderstood. I hope that by the end of our discussions, however long they take, and our consideration of these amendments, noble Lords and especially the Government will have a clearer understanding of some of the difficulties home educators have to deal with. This group contains a slightly miscellaneous, heterogeneous collection of amendments. Some of them touch on ground that we will probably consider more extensively and debate at greater length later, so for now I will focus on the two amendments standing in my name that are on a specific but very specialised aspect of the general issue of home education: flexi-schooling. I will make a couple of more general remarks at the end on the broader aspects of home education, as the question of whether Clause 31 should stand part of the Bill is formally in this group.
- Before we get into the detail, let me set out the purpose behind these clauses. Parents already have and will continue to have a right to home-educate — this Bill does not change that. But England and Wales are outliers: almost every western nation requires parents to notify authorities that they are home educating. As of October 2024, 111,700 children are known to be home educated and 39,200 are known to be missing education. Three-quarters of parents surveyed believe registration with local councils should be required. We have an ongoing implementation forum with home educators; we will consult on the regulations and statutory guidance; and I commit to continuing engagement with Peers and the home-educating community as we move to Report. I pay tribute to Lords Barran and Storey and to the late Lord Soley for their previous work on this.
My Lords, I acknowledge that it is unusual to rise at this point in the debate. I recognise that we have lots of detailed groups ahead of us in considering the issues in these clauses, but I thought it might be helpful and important to set out the intention behind the children not in school measures before we get into further detail on the technical elements. But, first, I pay tribute to those noble Members of this House who have previously supported legislative measures introducing registers of children not in school: the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who did excellent work in this space as part of her role in government; the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who has tirelessly worked to support and craft legislation; and Lord Soley, who has now retired from this House, who did a tremendous amount of work in campaigning for these registers. I also thank Members of the House for their engagement to date, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who met with officials, the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and my noble friend Lord Hacking who met my colleague Stephen Morgan, the Minister for Early Years. The engagement and overall support for these measures from all sides of the House have been welcome and instructive, but I recognise the detailed questions that noble Lords have, as reflected in the many groups we have ahead of us. On that basis, I want to be clear that it is important for this engagement to continue as we look at the detail of how this measure is implemented. We also continue to engage with the home-educating community. The previous Government held a consultation on a children not in school register in 2019, which received around 5,000 responses, mainly from parents. We have built on this engagement and have an ongoing implementation forum made up of home educators and other stakeholders, as well as other engagement opportunities with officials and Ministers. We will also consult on the regulations and statutory guidance required for implementation of the measures, which wi…
My amendment is different from the others here: it addresses children who are on a school roll but not attending — not home educators. There are significant inconsistencies between local authorities in how they handle persistent non-attendance. The Children's Commissioner's 2024 report described a shocking lack of urgency in tracing these children. Family courts regularly see unexplained school absence records that turn out to be markers of neglect or abuse — records that no one had followed up. I want consistent statutory duties: prompt reporting to local authorities of persistent non-attendance; urgent steps to trace any child believed missing without explanation; and appropriate support once found.My Lords, Amendment 226 in my name differs from others in this group, which are more concerned with children not attending school because they are not registered at any school, and the amendments we have discussed so far are more concerned with home education in its various forms. My amendment concerns those who are on a school roll but not attending and focuses on the responsibilities of local authorities in such situations. I apologise, therefore, if my amendment seems to be somewhat out on a limb, but I think it is quite an important limb. There is no doubt that the Government are working hard to address the problem of what has been described as an epidemic of school absences. It is well understood that such absences disadvantage children educationally and socially and deprive them of the value of education and of opportunities, in both the short and the long term. I will not attempt any analysis of the many explanations for failures to attend school, but they clearly include poverty, mental health problems and the pandemic, which is thought to have led some parents to see daily school attendance as optional. In this context, the fundamental duties are those of parents to ensure that their children of compulsory school age are receiving suitable full-time education and those of schools to record and monitor attendance and to inform local authorities of failures to attend regularly. In August last year, important revised statutory guidance on children missing education was issued. It states: “Schools should monitor attendance closely and address poor or irregular attendance. It is important that pupils’ poor attendance is referred to the local authority”. The guidance is also clear that the duties of schools and local authorities are to be viewed alongside the wider duties and local initiatives to promote the safeguarding of children. In October last year, the Government announced increased investment in attendance mentoring. On 22 October, the Minister, in answer…
Lord Meston's amendment is exactly right: what is the point of building a new structure to track home-educated children if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered at school but not attending? Is there actually a responsive system that this new information will be fed into? I very much hope the Minister will agree that conversations between now and 1 September would save considerable Committee time — I am in the UK all August.My Lords, I think this is a very important amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It reminds us that, in this part of the Bill, we dealing not just with parents who choose to educate their children at home but with some very substantial problems that state education has in not keeping hold of and looking after children who are nominally registered at school. I will come on to the question of unregistered alternative education, to which the state commits many children, in a later amendment. This is about looking after the children and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put his finger very firmly on what we ought to be doing. If there is a whole structure being built here to get better information on home-educated children, what is the point of it if we are not already using the information we have on children who are registered? Is there actually a responsive system that all this extra information is going to be fed into? Are we actually focusing on the children who need our help, or are we just making life more difficult for a lot of very responsible and successful parents? I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s approach to elective home education. I felt that there was a good deal in common in our approaches and I very much hope to be able to build on that as we look at these amendments. I will very much endeavour not to take up the time of the House if I can avoid it. In that context, picking up on the Minister’s very kind offer of conversations with officials, might it not help if those conversations could take place between today and 1 September? That would mean that I would not have to take up time in Committee: we could short-circuit it before then. I am in the UK all August, but perhaps that might not amuse her officials.
- I remain unclear about many aspects of the Government's policy. The noble Baroness talked about a register — but will it include every child, so local authorities can be sure no child is invisible? Can the provisions in Clause 37 connect with the benefits system and NHS records to catch those who never register at all? On the Haredi community and other communities who provide intensive religious education alongside elective home education: can the Minister confirm the Government wholehearted support their right to bring up their children in accordance with their beliefs, and that religious education will not be subject to inspection as long as it stays within the law and the child is 'seen'?
If I might address the general issues first, I remain unclear about many aspects of the Government’s policy. I was unaware of conversations with the implementation forum: if the noble Baroness is able to share who is on it, so that I can understand what been going on, that would be very helpful. My understanding is that, following the provisions of the Bill, all children will have the educational route that they are following clearly recorded, on one register or another, by the local authority; so, this is not something aimed at elective family education, it is aimed at looking after children. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that, so that we will not be left with invisible groups of children somewhere in the system. My own view of home education, though I have never tried it—I did threaten my daughter with it on several occasions, but I have never tried it—is that it is a fundamentally positive thing. One substantial group of home educators—about 60%, I would reckon—have found their child’s experience of state school to be sufficiently bad, or the child’s needs to be sufficiently non-standard, that they have taken on the challenge of educating them at home. In doing this, they are doing the nation a most substantial service and freeing the school concerned of a pupil who they have clearly had difficulty coming to terms with. They are contributing their own time and effort and they are costing the state much less than it costs to keep a child in school, particularly if that child has special educational needs, which many of these children do. To my mind, these parents deserve our wholehearted approbation and support, and I very much hope that the Minister agrees. Another group are those who wish to educate their children in a different way from what is on offer in our schools. Fundamental British values should guide us to respect and tolerate such difference, as we traditionally have. I agree with the Minister that we have a right to ask that t…
There should always be a register — I fully endorse the reasons the Minister gave. But the provisions in the Bill are too long and too complicated. Home-schooling accounts for only around 1% of children in state education; in 2024-25 that works out to roughly 90,000 pupils. Many home-educating parents are university-educated and organise co-operatives, museum visits, and tuition in subjects unavailable in state schools — classics, music, drama. They are very busy and extensive bureaucracy would be wrong. A register yes — but we should make the burden as light as possible.My Lords, this is my first occasion to speak in this debate on the eighth day of Committee. As I said at Second Reading, I have concentrated and will continue to concentrate on the issues relating to home-schooling parents and their pupils. It was therefore heartening to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, his strong endorsement of home education. It was also helpful of my noble friend the Minister to intervene when she did. It gives me the opportunity at the beginning of my short speech to say that there should always be a register. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, may remember that when she was in the Department for Education—I do not know if she is listening to me at the moment—I brought home-schooling mothers to her. The issue that I have on behalf of the home-schooling mothers is not whether there should be a register or not. I wholly endorse the ample reasons my noble friend the Minister gave in her speech just now. Yes, there should be a register, but the problem is that—these are the words I used at Second Reading—the provisions relating to home-schooling in the Bill are “too long and too complicated”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; cols. 1414.] We have certain difficulties in the conduct of this debate. First, there are several amendments that are not on the issue of home-schooling. The second difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Frost, identified, is that we are not taking things in the order of the Bill. We have already jumped to Clause 31. The first clause in the Bill on home-schooling is Clause 30. As an omnibus, there are altogether four clauses relating to home-schooling in the Bill: Clauses 30, 31, 32 and 33. It would be much more convenient if we had taken them in order. The best thing that I can do at this stage, it being the first occasion I have spoken on the Bill in Committee, is to address your Lordships on home-schooling, and their parents. Altogether, home-schooling accounts for only 1% of all children eligible for state education. In England…
Whatever framework we build, the child's education — and their ability to function independently as an adult — must come first. The first home educators I ever encountered were doing so because special educational needs were not being met in school. The system is better than it was, but the needs are still unmet for many. We must never lose sight of the fact that some parents believe they have a miracle cure for their child's learning difficulties, but may be wrong — and that child's right to a proper education is the paramount concern.My Lords, perhaps I might just interject here. One of the things about home education is that the education of the child should come first. That education should allow them to function independently as an adult afterwards. If we do not lose sight of that, we stand a chance of some common sense emerging on this. When somebody mentions “special educational needs”, I do not know whether it is me rising like a trout to a fly or running like a bull at a red flag, but I always look at this. The first people I ever experienced dealing with home education were doing so because special educational needs were not being met. The system is probably better than it was when they started, but we still know that there are a great many problems with it. If, for instance, you do not have the right teachers in a school or you cannot find the right school or one that you think has an acceptable plan, home education would certainly become more attractive. But do not forget that you still need a parent who is trained well enough to deliver that education. It is not an easy option. The fact is that some parents might think that they are well enough trained, but they get it wrong. I do not think that anybody here or who works in education has lacked for people who have a miracle cure—dyslexia is the one I am most familiar with—and say, “I can teach anybody to read by picturing the word and associating it”. This totally misunderstands that short-term memory is one of the primary problems. The last time somebody said that to me, I said, “Inconsequential: give me a mental image for that”. It was about the politest way I could tell them, when expletives came more readily to mind, but schemes like this are going through. I hope that we can get something here that says that education is the most important factor, because what happens to that child and the rights of the child must come first. If the state can find a way of delivering that, fine, because it has a duty to make sure that, after thei…
Thank you to the Minister for her opening remarks — they were helpful, and as a result I will not press all the amendments in my name.My Lords, at this stage, at the beginning of the many amendments on home-schooling stretching ahead, I would like to thank the Minister for her opening remarks. They were very helpful and, as a consequence, I will not speak on all the amendments to which I have put my name, even though a lot of scrutiny is required to make sure that we get this right.
Liberal Democrats have long called for a children-not-in-school register. The Welsh Government already operate a children-missing-education database and have welcomed these provisions as an enhancement. But we must balance the rights of parents who positively choose home education against the rights of children — including the right to be seen, to receive a suitable education, and to have their own views heard. The Welsh Children's Commissioner's three tests — every child accounted for, every child receiving suitable education, every child seen and listened to — provide a useful framework. Can the Minister say whether children's rights in England will be similarly addressed?My Lords, I will speak to the question that Clause 31 stand part of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for not having taken part in Second Reading. I also thank the Minister for her very clear statement at the start of this debate. I want to make a relatively short contribution to highlight one of the issues the Welsh Government wish to take forward in this Bill, and to acknowledge the constructive collaboration of the two Governments and their officers on this and other issues raised in the Bill. In particular, I want to make a few comments on children not in school registers. Liberal Democrats have long called for such a register, including in our recent manifesto. Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Storey, who initiated this work in his Private Member’s Bill on the subject. We agree with the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner that the register can be an important tool in keeping children safe. We understand the legal responsibilities parents have to ensure that their children receive an education. As liberals we believe that parents have a right to choose home education where they feel this is the right choice for their child. However, we are very concerned that the whereabouts of hundreds of children in England and Wales are simply unknown. Education is devolved to Wales, and the Welsh Government already operate a register on their children missing education database. However, the Welsh Education Secretary states in the legislative consent memorandum to this Bill that “the children not in school provisions proposed in this Bill would enhance the” children missing school “policy (from a safeguarding perspective) with the CNIS register, school attendance order (SAO), strengthened suitability assessment and child protection clauses applying alongside the CME database arrangements”. I am pleased that the Welsh Government have recognised that the provisions in this Bill as introduced would have resulted in local authorities in England having greater le…
I declare an interest as a parent of home-educated children. I fully accept there are rare cases of abuse concealed behind home education — but in virtually every such case the abuse was already present while the child was still in school. Using those tragedies to justify a system that treats all home-educating parents as presumptively suspect is disproportionate and unjust. Clause 38 requires registration regardless of any evidence of unsuitable education or harm, and the data that can be demanded is extensive: personal details, philosophical convictions, protected characteristics, information on supplementary education providers. Under data minimisation principles you don't collect more than you need simply because it might be helpful. And the truly at-risk families — the ones intent on abuse — are exactly the ones who won't self-register anyway.My Lords, I declare an interest as a parent of home-educated children. I take this opportunity to echo the earlier tributes to the many home-educating families who have worked so hard over such a long period to raise their children well, which, as another Peer mentioned, the data shows. I also thank the Minister for her offer to meet Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am around in August and, if officials can meet us to discuss our concerns, I would like to join some of those discussions. I support Amendments 202C, 227, 227A and 286, which collectively interrogate what I believe is a sweeping new framework that Clauses 31 and 34 impose. These clauses lie at the heart of the Bill’s proposals to establish this compulsory register of children not in school, and to empower local authorities to demand detailed information from parents about how and why they are educating their children outside the mainstream system. Let us be clear: I fully accept there are very few tragic cases where parents, intent on harming or neglecting their children, have cited home education as a smokescreen. However, in pretty much every instance, the abuse was already present when the child was still enrolled in school—or, indeed, in state-run care, as has just been mentioned. To take these horrors and use them to justify a regime that treats all parents who choose to home educate as presumptively suspect is not only disproportionate but profoundly unjust. It risks creating a system that soaks up scarce safeguarding resources chasing bureaucratic compliance by good families, while truly at-risk children continue to slip through the net precisely because professionals are mired in routine paperwork. Clause 31 in particular gives local authorities extraordinary powers. It requires the registration of any child not attending school full-time, regardless of whether there is any reason to suspect unsuitable education or harm. The data that can be demanded under this clause is extensive,…
- I strongly support the Government's home education provisions and find myself disagreeing with several colleagues on this. The number of children apparently home educated has grown from around 20,000–30,000 a decade ago to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 today — and that excludes the estimated 300,000 children the Education Policy Institute identified as missing from education entirely by comparing GP registrations with school roll data. Without a register, local authorities simply don't know who these children are; the 1.4% school attendance order rate is no measure of suitability. My amendment would give local authorities the right to inspect educational materials and see the child's work — far lighter touch than the European norm. France mandates yearly inspections. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel reported 27 referrals between 2020 and 2021 involving six child deaths and 35 further cases of serious harm, all involving children hidden in 'home education'. Sara Sharif was withdrawn from school after teachers noticed bruising; within months she was invisible to every agency and was murdered by her father and stepmother. I invite the home education lobby to reflect on whether its objections lack public spirit.
My Lords, my Amendment 279 would allow local authorities to inspect the materials being used in the child’s home education and to see the child’s work. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I strongly support the Government’s measures in relation to home education in this Bill, and in this respect I find myself in disagreement with a number of noble friends on these Benches with whom I generally share a common view of life. I was delighted to hear the Minister’s opening remarks on this group. I thought she put the situation exceptionally well. As we have heard, the home education lobby is very concerned about these provisions, and I am sure it will be concerned about my amendment. However, the number of children apparently being educated at home has grown exponentially over the past 10 to 15 years, probably from 20,000 to 30,000 to somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000, and that is without allowing for the 300,000 children estimated by the Education Policy Institute to be missing from education. My noble friend Lord Frost says that only 1.4% of home-educated children get a school attendance order, which is unsurprising as without a register local authorities just do not know who these children are. As for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, about the majority of home-schoolers being university-educated people, that may well be the case for those home-educated children who are being suitably educated, but I believe there are many more children who are apparently being home-educated but who do not have that benefit. Of course, many children are educated exceptionally well by their parents at home or in other settings, and I respect parents’ right to do that. These are not the parents who concern me, and nor should these parents be concerned about the provisions in the Bill or my amendment. If they are providing a suitable education, why should they be? But those of us who work in schools know that many children apparently…
- Seeing a child's work is essential — you can examine the materials being used to teach, but you can only tell whether a child is actually learning by looking at what they produce.
My amendment also says “to see the child’s work”. As those of us in schools know, seeing a child’s books is one of the best ways of finding out whether they are being properly taught. It may be that the home educators are educating their children in a particular way and you can see the materials that they are using to teach, but one needs to know whether the children are actually learning. The only way to know that is to see their work.
Even if local authorities could inspect materials, most home education officers are not teachers — how would they judge what they're looking at? The best local authorities build relationships with home-educating families, then concentrate resources on the problem cases. Adding this new duty would pile bureaucracy on families and authorities alike without improving outcomes.I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I very much understand the point that he is making. However, the issue is what happens to that material once it is inspected. How does the home education officer make a judgment on it? Most of them are not teachers—in fact, I suspect very few are. Do they go to an outside source, or do we set up some great panoply of mechanisms to decide whether those materials are appropriate? At the moment, we have a different situation. The current position, as I understand it, is that, where authorities have cause for concern, Sections 437 to 443 of the Education Act 1996 provide for steps to be taken if it appears that there is very little or no education in place for a child, or if the local authority has no information about any education arrangements. I understand that in most, possibly all, local authority areas home-educating parents provide an annual report to the local authorities, rather than providing materials that will be judged in isolation. I think that we should leave the law where it is. As I understand it, the attitude of the best local authority home education officers is that they build relationships; they are happy with most of the people, but can then concentrate on the problem areas—because there are problem areas—within the home education sphere. Imposing new duties such as this would add burden, bureaucracy and frustration to authorities and parents alike. We should concentrate on improving that relationship, not making it more burdensome.
- I support Amendment 279 — it is an extremely light-touch proposal from my noble friend. At close quarters I see the impact of home education in deprived communities where parents have limited education themselves and are clearly unable to teach their children; when those children are withdrawn from school, there is nothing anyone can do. According to the NSPCC, the number of home-educated children has risen 186% in six years; in 14 local authorities it has quadrupled. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel's May 2024 report, mirroring the 2021 Education Select Committee report, recommended clear criteria for assessing suitability. Sara Sharif's case — a ten-year-old girl with visible bruising, withdrawn from school citing home education, then murdered — makes the case beyond argument.
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Nash’s Amendment 279. It suggests a very mild tweak to the proposed legislation, largely because he is respectful of the majority of parents who do a good job in home education, which I completely agree with. However, I see at close quarters the impact of home education in deprived communities where the parents have limited education themselves and little interest in it. They are clearly unable to educate their own children and yet, when they are withdrawn from schools, there is nothing a school can do. These children are being thrown to the wolves and, as the Minister has said, the numbers are escalating. My noble friend Lord Nash talks about a trend over the past 10 to 15 years but, according to the NSPCC, the number has increased by 186% in six years. In 14 local authorities, it has quadrupled in that time. These are not all middle-class, educated parents, but we have no idea who they are. In 2021, the House of Commons Education Committee’s Strengthening Home Education report made a number of recommendations. Perhaps the most important was that the DfE should provide “a set of clear criteria against which the suitability of education can be assessed, taking into account the full range of pedagogical approaches taken in EHE”— elective home education— “as well as the age, ability and aptitude of individual children, including where they may have SEND”. The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, a government-sponsored group, produced a number of recommendations on home education in its May 2024 report, and many of these mirrored the report I have just mentioned. The report refers to 27 referrals received between August 2020 and October 2021, involving the deaths of six children and a further 35 suffering serious harm, including physical neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse. There are many other good recommendations, but, as they do not fit this specific amendment, I will not list them. I recommend these two reports to…
- I support Amendment 202C and Amendment 226. I have a relative who home-educates, which prompted me to investigate carefully. The best examples of elective home education are perfectly attuned to the needs, capabilities and aspirations of the child. But I am equally concerned about the 39,000 missing children who may be at risk, running wild, or being isolated. Whatever framework we create, it must build a positive relationship between home-educating parents and local authorities — where that relationship is good, the system works; where it is fraught, everyone suffers.
My Lords, I support Amendment 202C from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and Amendment 226 from my noble friend Lord Meston. As this is the first time I have spoken in Committee, I would like to make two preliminary remarks. The first is to declare a personal interest, as I have a relative who is home-educating, and therefore I have learned at second hand some of the issues involved here. Secondly, that has also caused me to want to investigate more and to thank the many people both inside and outside this House who have provided me with information about the whole field of home education and how it relates to local authorities. I am very grateful to the Minister for having a meeting with me early on in this process and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for also having meetings with me to discuss these issues. I very much appreciate it, and I very much appreciate the fact that the Minister has offered to meet Peers. I am available in August, so we look forward to having further discussions and perhaps saving some time in Committee around some of the relatively minor details that need to be cleared up in the Bill. I do not want to take up too much time; I will simply make three or four points and then speak to the amendments. If noble Lords want to see a real approach to personalised education, they can find that in some of the successful examples of elective home education perfectly attuned to the needs, capabilities and aspirations of the child. That happens at all levels of achievement. However, and equally, I am concerned about the 39,000 missing children mentioned who may be at risk of abuse, may be running wild or are being brainwashed and separated from society in some form. There are a whole range of different sets of issues that we must think about here. In characterising home education, I just want to pick up one other point that I do not think has been made by anyone: some parents choose to home-educate one of their children b…
- Most home educators do an amazing job — I have met hundreds of them and hundreds more have written to me. But the 39,000 children missing education are the reason the Government is right to act. Imagine a society that simply lets children be withdrawn with no records, no oversight, and no idea what is happening — that is where we are now. And fundamentalist unregistered schools that Ofsted has tried to close keep re-emerging as 'home education' settings, where young children spend all day memorising holy scripture and receive no proper education at all. We can design a system that protects vulnerable children without creating a bureaucratic burden for responsible families — but the system has to work.
My Lords, I thank the Government for taking this issue on and for being aware of the problems that we face. I also recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was on to this in her role as Minister as well. I have met hundreds of home educators and considerably more have contacted me, and most of them do an amazing job. Noble Lords ought to know that some of the home educators who have contacted me by email have been concerned about what has been going on and given practical examples of that. We need to get a balanced picture sometimes. If we really want to understand this issue, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, makes the point in his amendment that 39,000 children are missing—we have no idea where they are. The Government want to tackle that head-on. Imagine a society that says to those who want to remove their children from the education system that that is fine—just do it—but we will not keep any records and we will have no idea what you are doing at home, and will leave you to get on with it. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a situation where fundamentalist religious groups set up unregistered schools and we have no idea what is happening in them, except occasionally when some of the teachers working in them report to the authorities the appalling behaviour of staff? Ofsted has on many occasions tried to close those schools down, but they re-emerge as home education settings—
- On the 30,000 figure — the Education Policy Institute, comparing GP registrations with school and home education records, estimated a gap of 300,000 children in 2023, not 30,000. That is before accounting for home-educated children.
On the figure of 30,000, the Education Policy Institute, of which I was a trustee until relatively recently, estimated by comparing GP registrations with school registration and home education data that in 2023 there was a gap of 300,000 children—and that was not accounting for home-educated children.
- There are really four distinct groups: traditional home educators doing an excellent job; parents who home-educate because the system has failed a child with special educational needs; post-Covid families where parents gave in to school refusal but have no experience of education; and children in unregistered fundamentalist settings. We cannot use a single blanket approach. The key thing is that any system we bring in must actually work — the unique pupil number was meant to track children between schools, and that has broken down. Whatever we legislate must ensure every child is known, learning, and safe.
I thank the noble Lord for that. Clearly, there are different groups of home educators and we cannot just use the blanket term “home education”. First, there are the traditional home educators. Let us be honest, the most important educators in a child’s life are the parents, and some parents have the time, opportunity, money and desire to teach their children at home. They do a fantastic job. As I said earlier, I have met many of them. They organise summer camps, celebrate together, et cetera. In the main, they are probably the people who have the resources and time to do that. The second group are those whom my noble friend mentioned: parents who feel that the education system is not working for their children who have special educational needs. I think we can understand that. Then there is a third type, which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, mentioned. After Covid, children, mainly from poorer families or disadvantaged backgrounds, returned to school and could not cope. They went back to their parents and said, “I don’t want to be in school”. They nagged their mum and dad who, in the end, said, “Okay, we’ll home educate you”, despite having no experience of home education at all. Sadly, those parents did a major disservice to their children, who of course were not being home educated—they were just doing nothing at home and getting further and further behind in their learning. Some have gone on to criminal activities as well. Finally, there is the group I mentioned before: those in unregistered schools. If noble Lords knew some of the practices that went on in those schools, they would be appalled. In fundamentalist religious schools, eight year-old boys spend all their time just learning holy scriptures and have no proper education, which is not acceptable at all. I understand some parents’ concerns that they do not want to see bureaucratic procedures getting in the way of their home education, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, rightly mentioned. It is not beyond our wit…
- The people who abuse their children, or hide them in fundamentalist environments, are the very ones who will not register even if we have a database. Will we end up imposing huge bureaucracy on responsible families while the 39,000 or 300,000 we actually want to find still don't self-disclose?
Perhaps I might build on that point. There seems to be a lot of conflation in this debate between home education and children who are missing education or invisible. It seems that all these measures are designed to try to find these invisible children. Is there not a risk, as I think the noble Lord is touching on, that we may bring in a system that does not actually find the missing children? The people who are very determined to abuse their children, or to hide them in very fundamentalist environments, are the very people who would not register their children even if we had a database. In which case, we would be going after all the people who are doing a good job in the noble Lord’s first few categories. Will the parents we actually want to get—the 39,000 or 300,000 or however many—really self-disclose? There is a real risk that we might not know this until we have imposed a huge amount of bureaucracy on all the parents who are doing a great job.
- At the moment we are doing nothing — and that is exactly why children are going missing. We have to do something.
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The answer is that, at the moment, we are not doing anything, which is why the children are going missing and why we do not know where they are. We therefore need to do something to ensure that those children have the opportunity of education and are safe.
The DWP already has data on many home-educating families who claim benefits. If the Department for Education and DWP shared data, we could reach the at-risk families through the benefits system without imposing a blanket register on everyone.Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. I am on the Social Mobility Policy Committee. As part of the evidence gathering process, we went to Blackpool, where we met with the Department for Work and Pensions, which has a database on many children who are being home-schooled because they are in receipt of benefits. Indeed, a lot of the parents who have been mentioned today, who are not particularly well suited to home education, also claim benefits. If the Department for Education and DWP could communicate with one another, we could get to these people via the benefits system.
- I'm sure the Minister is taking note. Whatever we legislate between Committee and Report must be workable, clear, and as unbureaucratic as possible. And on flexi-learning: I once had a school-phobic pupil whose mother was a nurse; we gradually home-educated him back into school. That kind of arrangement — a type of flexi-learning — was exactly what he needed. Above all, we must ensure that every child is known, learning, and safe.
I thank the noble Lord for that point; I am sure that the Minister is listening and learning. Again, I hope that, between Committee and Report, we can be sure that what we legislate for will be workable, clear and as unbureaucratic as it can be. Finally, I will deal with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made at the very beginning made about flexi-learning. I have some slight experience with that, because, as I think I have mentioned before in your Lordships’ House, I had a pupil who was school-phobic; he literally would not come into school. His mum was a nurse and did not have the opportunity to home-educate, so we home-educated for her. Gradually, by that home education—which, I suppose, was a type of flexi-learning—we were able to bring the boy back into school. I hope that, at the end of debating these many amendments, the most important thing will be that we ensure that we know where every child is, that every child is learning and that every child is safe.
- The Minister's opening statement was very helpful in setting out the Government's objectives and commitment to working with Peers — seemingly in August. The principle of a children-not-in-school register has long had cross-party support, and I cannot support removing Clause 38 from the Bill, though I appreciate that was a probing notice. Amendment 226 on persistent non-attendance and Amendment 279 on inspecting materials and work both have merit. In our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children we must also make every effort not to stigmatise parents who make a positive choice to home-educate.
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the clarity she brought with her earlier remarks. She set out the objectives of the Government and her commitment, on behalf of colleagues in the department, to work with Peers across the House—it looks as though that will be in August—to explore their concerns and, where possible, to address them. I also thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for the constructive tone of his opening remarks. The principle of having a register for children not in school has long held cross-party support and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, described, there are very different groups of children who are educated at home. What the debate has started to explore is that, in our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, which we must try to do well, and to support those children who have struggled in mainstream school, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise, or to treat with suspicion, parents who make a positive choice to home-educate their children. This group and many of the others which follow highlight the complexity of creating a home-schooling register and the multiplicity of details that need to be considered. I note that Amendments 202C, 227, 227A and 286 and the opposition to Clause 31 standing part of the Bill are all probing, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarifications. I thought, unsurprisingly, that my noble friend Lord Frost made some very valid points on the risk of duplication of supervision and safeguarding in relation to children who are flexi-schooled. On the individual amendments, there are two in this group which we support: Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and Amendment 279 in the name of my noble friends Lord Nash and Lord Agnew. With regard to children missing education and Amendment 226, most people would be surprised if it was not already a duty to inform the court if proceedings relating to the welfare of the child were under way and that child was not in school. It seems to me high…
- Parents already have and will continue to have the right to home-educate in line with their preferences, values or religious beliefs — the Bill does not change that. The register is not a statement that there is something illegitimate in parents' choices; it is about ensuring every child is seen. Parental rights are not absolute: parents must be able to demonstrate to local authorities that education is suitable — that is the existing position. On Amendment 226: schools are already required to report attendance information to local authorities, who are expected under statutory guidance to use it to facilitate support including in family courts — a new system is not needed. On Amendment 279: local authorities can already request work samples to assess suitability, as confirmed in the Portsmouth judicial review in 2021; if not satisfied, they must serve a school attendance order. On data protection: all data will be processed only for the specific purpose of a child's education, welfare or safeguarding, subject to UK GDPR. We will consult on guidance and regulations, and the guidance will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments relates to the purpose and scope of children not in school registers. As the first group in consideration of these clauses, it has, rightly, raised some broad issues of principle as well, so I will speak for slightly longer than I will, I hope, on subsequent groups to put some of the important principles on the record and, I hope, to begin to allay some of the concerns expressed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for the important points he raised. I want to address the principal points, as I say, before turning to other noble Lords’ amendments in this grouping. During today’s debate, we will hear much about parents’ rights, so I want to be clear up front again that parents already have and will continue to have a right to home-educate their children, in line with their preferences, values or religious beliefs. On some of the specific points that the noble Lord raised, we will give further consideration in Clause 36 to the nature of the places in which children are educated and whether they should be further inspected and regulated. The noble Lord is right that we are attempting here to make sure that we know where children are and that they are seen. It is not about preventing them being educated elsewhere than in schools or necessarily seeing that as a risk. It is important that we do not, as some noble Lords have suggested, view the register as a statement that there is something illegitimate in the choices made by many parents to educate their children. It is about ensuring that every child, however, is seen. It is also important that we do not lose sight of parents’ responsibilities and children’s rights. The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Nash, made this point very well. Parental rights are not absolute. They must be able to be evidence to local authorities that education is suitable. That is the existing position and the Bill does not change it. Children not in school registers will help ensure that…
- If a determined local authority objects to home-schooling, couldn't it simply begin an investigation under these powers — and technically place a family under investigation indefinitely, preventing them from home-educating?
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is it not the case that if a determined local authority objects to home-schooling, they could start a process of investigating a family under these powers and therefore, technically, the family would be under investigation and could be refused—and all parents could theoretically be prevented from doing so?
- No. Section 47 child protection inquiries require evidence of significant harm — the vast majority of home-educating families would never come near that threshold, and local authorities would have no incentive to pursue them. Flexi-schooling is not prohibited; we will update guidance to clarify that schools should agree to it only in exceptional circumstances. The consent provisions will be debated in later groups.
No, and we will come to that in detail. The Section 47 provision, the child protection inquiries, would require evidence of significant harm to the child. It is not the case, as we have identified, that many parents who are home-educating would get anywhere near that sort of threshold. Nor would local authorities have any incentive to do that. These provisions do not prohibit flexi-schooling arrangements. However, schools should agree to a flexi-schooling arrangement only in exceptional circumstances. We will update guidance to make this clear. In later groups we will be talking in more detail about the provisions around the consent process. I turn to Amendment 286 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is a probing amendment which would remove an exemption on the parental duty to provide information for registers. To be clear, the proposed exemption relates to children whose education is provided under alternative provision arrangements when special educational provision other than in schools is in place or where arrangements have been made by the proprietor of the school that the child is attending. These children may be in scope of the children not in school registers, but the local authority will already hold this information, so there is no need for a duty to provide information that rests with the parents in those cases. Amendment 233A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, aims to push on what mandatory information local authority registers should contain. The only information required to be held on registers is that which is easily available to parents or obtainable by local authorities, and that is important for ascertaining the suitability of education and the safety of the child—such as the child’s name, their date of birth, address and details of education provided by the parent and others. We will talk on later groups about the way in which that information should be provided and the ease with which I hope it can be provided. I turn now to Amendme…
- Two quick points for the Minister. First, will the register ultimately include every child — so local authorities can be confident none are invisible? Second, on flexi-schooling: isn't the school itself in by far the best position to evaluate whether the child's overall education is suitable and to discontinue the arrangement if not? Why insert a local authority official into a process the school can already manage?
My Lords, if I might pick up the Minister on a couple of small issues, could she first confirm to the House that we will see a form of registration that will include every child? I thought that that was where we were going in Clause 4. She seemed to be talking about a register that includes only bits and pieces. In order for the local authority to know that it is not missing a child, can it use the provisions in Clause 4 and whatever comes out of that to connect to, as my noble friend said, what is going on in the benefits system and the NHS, in order to know that every child is in the system somewhere and to pick up cases where children are not being registered and seen? Secondly, when it comes to flexi-schooling, is not the school absolutely in the best position to evaluate whether a child is receiving a proper education as a whole? A school has the power to discontinue flexi-schooling if that is not the case. Why do we want to insert a local authority official into a process when the school is in much the best place to take those decisions?
- The information-sharing provisions will help local authorities ensure no child falls through the gaps — but that doesn't remove the need for a register covering children not in school for whatever reason. On flexi-schooling: where a child is partly in school and partly educated elsewhere, including them in the register is about having sight of the part that isn't at school — and the school may already hold the information about other provision, so parents may not need to provide additional information themselves.
If I have understood the noble Lord’s first point, it relates to whether the information-sharing provisions within this legislation will support the ability of local authorities to be able to track, so that they can ensure that children do not fall through the gaps. Of course that would be the case, but that in itself does not remove the requirement to ensure that, as he said, local authorities have information about where all children are receiving their education. The noble Lord is right that the intention of these clauses is that, obviously, if a child is receiving their education in school, it is clear and they are seen, but if they are not receiving their education in school for whatever reason, it is important that they are seen. The intention is that those are the children who should be included in the register of children not in school. I take the noble Lord’s point about flexi-schooling, but it is possible to envisage, as I suggested, models of flexi-schooling where children are receiving part of their schooling at a school where they are registered and on the roll but are not receiving all of their schooling there. Therefore, the explanation of why they should be included in the register of children not in school is in order to have sight of the other part of their schooling. The other point that I made was that that would not necessarily require parents to provide additional information, because it may well be that the information about where that education provision is happening is known by the school. There is a range of different flexi-schooling arrangements and it is important that, in line with the helpful principle that the noble Lord set out at the beginning, we are able to see children and to see the education that they are receiving.
- Thank you to the Minister for her comprehensive opening statement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support on flexi-schooling. The brief exchange we just had on flexi-schooling illustrates exactly the sort of question better resolved in one of those August meetings than on the Floor. I associate myself with the comments of Lords Lucas and Wei on the principles at stake.
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this discussion. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for her support on the flexi-schooling amendments and the Minister for her response and her comprehensive statement earlier in the debate, which was helpful. The brief discussion that we have just had on flexi-schooling illustrates exactly the sort of point that is perhaps better discussed in one of those August meetings than now on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. I will not detain noble Lords further. We have had a much fuller debate than perhaps I expected and I might have spoken at greater length at the start if I had known quite how large a debate we would have. I take this opportunity nevertheless to associate myself with the comments of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei on the principles of this discussion.