Committee stage in the Lords
Lords Committee scrutinised Clauses 30–33 on home education consent and children-not-in-school registers, with peers pressing for tribunal rights, tighter drafting, and exemptions for specific family circumstances.
L(Clause 30 as drafted is striking in its breadth — it hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn from a maintained school, and the grounds on which that consent may be withheld are nowhere properly limited. A teacher who doesn't understand home education could trigger a Section 47 inquiry with a single referral, sweeping in families fleeing bullying, grooming or unmet special educational needs. That is a sweeping state veto over parents' decisions that cuts against Article 8 ECHR and the common-law presumption that parents act in their children's best interests. Amendment 215A offers a better path: a voluntary information session so parents understand their rights and responsibilities before deregistering — not a barrier, just an offer of informed partnership.My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 203A and Amendment 215A, and to give moral support to Amendment 221. Before turning to these provisions, I wish to reflect briefly on the underlying scope and purpose of Clause 30. Clause 30 as drafted is striking in its breadth. It hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn from a maintained school. I pick up here on a point made previously by the Minister about whether all parents could be subject to this. My assertion is that they could if a local authority decided, on the withdrawal of the child from school, to put the parent under a Section 47 order. Apparently, this is incredibly easy to do. The law requires only reasonable cause to suspect significant harm. It is a deliberately low bar, meant to protect children, and I have had correspondence—we can discuss this again in August—that indicates that it has at times been misused, just through a referral, for example, from the school itself. Let us say that a teacher does not really understand home education, is concerned that withdrawal might cause harm and alerts the local authority. Instantly, it can start an investigation. As an officer, you run that by your manager, who is busy—partly, perhaps, because there are many more families to investigate now that that the database exists. Perhaps there was a missed medical appointment, which I am sure we have all experienced, and they were late and could not see the doctor in time, perhaps because there was traffic. Suddenly, that might give rise to an S47. Although in theory, under the clause, only a certain subset of parents may be affected, potentially, in practice, depending on the ideological bias of the officers involved—and we have seen in some authorities that there clearly are some outliers—all parents may be swept into such measures. Clause 30 as drafted hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn, yet nowhere does it properly limit the g…
The home-schooling provisions in this Bill are too long and too complicated — 29 pages across Clauses 30 to 33, inserting 17 very large new sections into the Education Act 1996. Not only do you need the Bill in your hands; you have to go back to the 1996 Act as well. I am giving notice that I will oppose the Question that Clause 30 stand part.My Lords, as I said at Second Reading and repeated earlier this afternoon, it is my contention on behalf of home-schooling parents that the provisions in this Bill are “too long and too complicated”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; col. 1414.] To that end, I have given notice that I will oppose the Question that Clause 30 stand part of the Bill. I also put down Amendment 233A relating to Clause 31. Perhaps we could look at the whole. I have argued against the long and complicated provisions in this Bill relating to home-schooling parents because they are frightfully oppressive on home-schooling parents and are in many ways unworkable because of the complicated language used in this Bill. To look at it as a whole, the home-schooling provisions in the Bill are covered in Clauses 30 to 33. They cover 29 pages, from page 50 to page 79 of the Bill, and the clauses therein contain 17 very large new sections to be inserted after Sections 434 and 436 of the Education Act 1996. So the further complication is that not only do you need to have in your hands this Bill, or Act when it is passed, but you have to go back to the 1996 Act.
I am supportive of the Bill, but we must not be too onerous on parents or local authorities. If I am right, parents need only provide information under new section 436C(1), not the much longer list in subsection (2). But how often does this have to be updated? If a parent brings in someone new to teach for one hour a week, must they notify in advance? An annual review? We need to be clear about that as a sign of good faith — otherwise the rules will be misinterpreted and become far more cumbersome than was ever intended.My Lords, I rise to ask a question on this set of amendments on registers. I have not spoken before, but I am absolutely supportive of the Bill; it is long overdue and I very much welcome it. But in the spirit of wanting to do this as practicably as possible, we need to make sure that we are not being too onerous on parents and local authorities in this area, and that what we do makes sense. In respect of what has just been said, if I am right, parents just have to provide information under new Section 436C(1), not new Section 436C(2), which is a much longer list. In fairness, it says: “To the extent that the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it”, so I am not overly worried about that. I do not think that the questions being asked are unreasonable, as long as the list does not grow and we are firm with local authorities about not sneaking in extra questions that are not required, but—I am not sure where this is in the Bill—how often does this have to be updated by parents? When educating your child, if for some reason you wish to do an area of learning next month and you approach somebody new to do that—maybe for one hour a week—would you have to notify in advance, would you do an annual review or whatever? We need to be really clear around that area, as a sign of good faith that we are not deliberately trying to make this onerous. There should not be some kind of checking that means you can never make a mistake. I am just using this as an example for the Minister because, if we are not careful, the rules could be misinterpreted and this could get more cumbersome than we intended. Other than that, I do not think that new Section 436C(1) is unreasonable or time consuming, as long as it is interpreted in the way that was intended.
- I have to disagree with my noble friend: new section 436C(1)(e) is not okay at all — it is most onerous. And on the update question: the duty to inform the register of any change is 15 days, every time. The subsection (2) list I also flagged is the one on local authorities — it actually numbers 27 requirements, which illustrates how unworkable the Bill has become.
My Lords, my noble friend was a most distinguished Secretary of State for Education, and I am very grateful to her for intervening in this debate. To answer her questions directly, she said that she was focusing only on new Section 436C(1), which is indeed the subsection that I particularly drew to your Lordships’ attention in covering paragraph (e). I have to disagree with my noble friend saying that it is okay; I do not think it is okay at all. My noble friend asked what the onward obligation is to provide further information when, let us say, an extra teacher or the like is brought in. The answer according to the Bill is that there is a duty to inform the register every time, within 15 days, so that is the onward responsibility. My noble friend is quite right that new Section 436C(2) refers to the local authority, not the parents. I pointed it out because there is an enormous number of requirements on the local authority in the registration process; they actually number 27. That is an illustration of how complicated the Bill has become and how unworkable it is in its present state.
I have three amendments here. On Amendment 204, I'd like the Minister to explain the Government's reasoning behind the consent condition for special-school children. On Amendment 210, 'without undue delay' tends in government mouths to mean quite a long time — where a child's education is at stake, something tighter is surely advisable. And Amendment 221 is simply this: if a local authority is acting unreasonably, the parent needs access to a real tribunal. The Secretary of State route doesn't work.My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has said, as the Minister will know from my numerous amendments later in the Bill, which I look forward to discussing with officials. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 204 inquires after the process in subsection (3) describing condition A. I hope that the Minister can describe today what the Government’s reasoning is in making this change. When it comes to what the process is going to be and whether there is the capability in system to do it, I am happy to leave that to discussions with officials. Amendment 210 questions the meaning of “without undue delay”. If the hereditary Peers Bill was amended to say that we were leaving without undue delay, I would regard that as a plus. Such phrases in the mouths of government tend to mean quite a long time. I would have thought that in these circumstances, where the education of a child is concerned, something tighter might be advisable. Amendment 221 says that, if this is what it looks like, the parent really needs access to a tribunal. If a local authority is on song and doing things quickly and it all goes smoothly and fairly, fine, but there are a lot of local authorities—my noble friend Lord Wei named the most notoriously worst of them—where this is not the case, often just temporarily because of staff changes or short-staffing. In those circumstances, the parent needs some recourse, because it is the child that matters.
Amendment 204 would narrow the scope to exclude children in special schools from the consent requirement. We seem to be treating parents of children with special needs the same as parents under an active child-protection investigation — that feels disproportionate, and it risks a conflict of interest where home education is discouraged because therapeutic support costs more there than in a special school. Amendment 219 is simpler: if a local authority refuses consent, it must give parents a written statement of reasons including the costs and benefits to the child. I assume that would be good practice anyway, but can the Minister confirm it?My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 204 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lucas would narrow the scope of local authority powers to withhold consent to home education, in this case to exclude children in special schools. The driver of this—I looked at the Explanatory Notes but could not see anything that explains why special schools are all included—is that we seem to be treating parents of children with special needs in the same way as parents where there is an active investigation from children’s services and that feels disproportionate. There is also a risk of a conflict of interest where home education could be discouraged if the costs of providing therapeutic support to a child might be higher in that setting than in a special school, even if that was in the child’s best interests. My Amendment 219 is a sort of common-sense amendment on an issue that I hope the Minister can clarify at the Dispatch Box. It seeks clarification that, if a local authority was to refuse consent to a parent to educate their child at home, it would need to provide the parents or carers with a statement explaining the reasons why, including the costs and benefits to the child. I assume that this would be good practice anyway, but if the noble Baroness can confirm that, that would be helpful. I am sympathetic to the clarity that Amendment 210 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas would bring in terms of timings, but I think that Amendment 215A would be unduly onerous for local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, expressed concerns about the complexity of Clause 30. I am with him in that I think there is work to be done on Clause 30. He also focused on Clause 31 in his remarks, but I will cover those points in the next group.
The relationship between local authorities and home-educating parents is the vital thing here — and at a time of considerable suspicion and confusion, a right of appeal to a tribunal will help. It is simply common sense.My Lords, I am sorry; I missed my turn to jump up. I wanted to make two remarks. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has drawn the big picture of a range of issues that concern us all and I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we can hopefully work through those in meetings or in Committee in a bit of detail. There are many points to come back to on that. The one that I want to pick up on is Amendment 221, from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others, on the right of appeal. It goes back to a point that I made earlier: the relationship between local authorities and home-educating parents is the vital one in all of this. In the end, we are providing the legislative framework within which that will operate. At a time when there is clearly a lot of suspicion, confusion and so on, a right of appeal will help to deal with that situation. It seems common sense to have a right of appeal to a tribunal.
Clause 30 applies only to a narrow, specific group: children at a special school placed there by the local authority, children subject to a Section 47 inquiry under the Children Act 1989, or children on a child protection plan. If you do not fall into one of those three categories, you do not need to seek consent to home-educate. The clause is not an automatic bar even for those who do — it simply requires the local authority to take a closer look. Statutory guidance will ensure local authorities act consistently and proportionately. On Amendment 219, local authorities are already obliged to give reasons for a refusal; I will make that clear in statutory guidance. On Amendment 221, a review process already exists in Clause 30: the Secretary of State can uphold the decision, direct consent to be granted, or refer the question back.My Lords, we have got to group 3, which is good. I start by addressing the Clause 30 stand part notice tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking. Clause 30 sets out the requirement that a child who is on a child protection plan, who is the subject of a Section 47 inquiry or who is registered at a special school cannot be removed from school to be home-educated without local authority permission. We have set out clearly those instances—my noble friend did not necessarily agree that it was clear, but I hope that I will make it clear now—where children will fall within the scope of Clause 30 and so require consent in order to be home-educated. Specifically, it will apply to pupils in England who are of compulsory school age and for whom at least one of the following applies: the child attends a special school and they became a pupil at that school through arrangements made by the local authority; the child is subject to child protection inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989; or there is a child protection plan in place. The intent of the legislation is that, if you do not fall into one of those categories, you do not need to seek the consent of the local authority in order to home-educate your child. There is a narrow and specific group of children for whom Clause 30 suggests that their parents will need to seek the consent of the local authority.
- According to the statistics I have, the Secretary of State has never, in a case brought by a home-educating family, upheld a complaint against a local authority. Can the Minister tell us how many times that appeal route has actually been used in the family's favour? And if that is the record, will she reconsider whether a tribunal might be more appropriate?
I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that this appeal process to the Secretary of State already exists. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to be the tribunal for the parents, if the parents feel that the local authority or the Government have not been supportive of their desire to home-educate. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know how many times, when a home-educated family has requested support from the Secretary of State to overturn a local authority decision, that has actually happened. According to the statistics I have, there has never been such an instance. I wonder whether, if this were to be tested in a court or by some other mechanism, this form of procedural appeal would not really muster the kind of belief that the Minister has. Might she reconsider looking into the various forms of appeal that we will propose in later groups of amendments, or indeed look again at the idea of a tribunal?
- This legislation introduces the consent process itself — the statistics the noble Lord cites come from a different regime entirely. Would he like another go?
This legislation introduces the consent process. People have not gone through this process, with the specific, narrow categories of children and families for whom it applies. Does the noble Lord want another go?
- I am referring to cases where home-educating families have written to the Secretary of State under the current regime and no action has been taken in their favour. Perhaps we can discuss this further in August.
I am referring to other instances, which home-educated families have referenced, where they have written to the Secretary of State for Education —under the current regime, not the future one—and where no action has ever been taken in their favour. Perhaps we can discuss this in August.
- The engagement between now and September is intended to explain how the Government intend to implement these provisions — it is not an opportunity for those who fundamentally oppose what we are doing to persuade officials to wholly change our approach. And to be clear: letters to the Secretary of State about other matters are different from the review process that is spelled out in Clause 30. On the notification frequency and the detail of section 436C(1)(e), those are exactly the issues for consultation on regulations and guidance with home-educating parents and others.
Let us not talk about what will happen and when in terms of engagement with my officials. Just to be clear: as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that engagement will enable noble Lords to get an understanding of the way the Government intend to implement these provisions and to get some assurance around the processes that will be used. It will not be another opportunity for noble Lords who fundamentally oppose what the Government are doing—I am thinking of the noble Lord, who started his contribution by saying that he fundamentally opposes what we are trying to do here. I am not sure that the engagement will be particularly helpful for persuading, through officials, the Government to wholly change their approach to this. As I said, it is intended to look at the detail and to provide some assurance about how the processes will work. I will reiterate the point I made previously. Clause 30 is introducing a consent mechanism and, specifically, a review process of that consent mechanism. Home-educating parents may well have written on other issues to the Secretary of State and been dissatisfied with the response that they received. However, that is different from the review process that is spelled out in legislation in Clause 30. I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris. She is right. She asks questions that are the subject of amendments to be debated in later groups, but they are very reasonable. She asked about how much time a child would need to study with a provider for it to be reported, and how often and how quickly parents would need to update the details about that. Those are precisely the types of issues that would be subject to the further consultation around the regulations and guidance, including with home-educating parents and others, to ensure that we do that in a way that balances the burdens and requirements on parents, alongside ensuring that the local authority has the basic information that it needs to make the scheme work properly…
- I'm grateful for the Minister's flexibility on the notification timetable. But I asked specifically in my letter of 20 June whether the provisions in subsection (e) could be reviewed with a home-educating parent to find a practical answer. I must press that again: in its present form, new section 436C(1)(e) is most onerous — and the same information is not sought from parents of children in state schools.
I am getting up to thank the Minister for her willingness to consider the timetable for the notification by the schooling parent of any changes in the educational plan, which they will have had to give already in detail under new Section 426C(1)(e). I am asking her, as I did in my speech, whether she and the Government would be willing to look at the actual terms of subsection (e), which have been widely described as very onerous. I gave examples of that, such as the need to give details of Sunday schooling. I also pointed out that that type of information is not sought at all from parents with children at state schools. I remind her that, after the very successful meeting with the Minister, Stephen Morgan, on 17 June, I wrote a follow-up letter on 20 June, copying in my noble friend. I asked specifically whether the provisions in subsection (e) could be reviewed, with a schooling parent, to find a practical answer. I must suggest again that, in its present form, it is most onerous.
- On tribunals: they are an established part of mediating between the citizen and the state. The Secretary of State route has existed in various forms for a long time — I am aware of one occasion when the Secretary of State agreed with the complainant. It does not work as an effective forum; the department is not staffed or skilled as a tribunal. I will keep pressing for an effective right of appeal, and I would very much appreciate the support of noble Baroness Barran for a tribunal amendment at Report.
I am very grateful to the Minister for what she said. I entirely understand the limitations of discussions with officials, which is why I want to talk to her again about tribunals. Tribunals are an established part of mediating between the citizen and the state. In situations like this, or in many circumstances similar to those we are talking about—and this is by no means the only time we will discuss this; the next time will be when we are talking about best interests—when you have a hard-pressed local authority that may have a particular prejudice against home education and may be making life extremely difficult, as some of them do, you want an effective right of appeal. The system of appeal to the Secretary of State has existed in various forms in various bits of legislation for a long time. I am aware of one occasion when the Secretary of State agreed with the complainant. It does not work as an effective forum. It is not set up to be an effective forum. It does not allow for balanced and deep argument. The department is just not set up as a tribunal: it is not staffed as a tribunal, nor skilled as a tribunal. It is not the right place. I just say to my noble friend Lady Barran that I would very much appreciate her support for a tribunal amendment at Report, because that is what this appears likely to come to.
- We are trying to make Clause 30 work — even those of us who oppose the register totally have a responsibility to improve this legislation. The suggestions in this group are sensible: treating children in special schools and their parents with more care, requiring a statement of costs and benefits, providing a proper appeals process. What I am hearing, though, is a 'state knows best' argument — the state gets 28 days to give a reason, the parent gets only 15. That will not sound fair to British families. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
We have heard in discussing this group of amendments a number of excellent suggestions for trying to take the edge off these complex—as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said—and, in my view, quite heavy-handed requirements on families. On the previous group, the Minister was very kind in offering discussions so that we can move forwards. Even though I have said that I oppose the register totally, that does not mean that I am shirking my responsibility as a legislator to help improve this legislation and to make it practical, based on the experience of someone from a home-educating family and having heard what was said by many Peers who have contributed to the debate. We are trying to make this practical and to make it work, so that people can get on with educating their children and local authorities can catch the perpetrators they want to catch. There have been discussions about the tribunal, appeals and the fact that the department’s appeals process generally does not seem to behave in the way you would expect of a proper appeals process when parents complain directly. We have heard some quite sensible amendments in this group and the Minister has not indicated that she is willing to adopt any of the ideas in them. We will see later on. We appreciate the clarification that, when we meet officials, we will be told what the Bill is about and why it has been written in this way, but I hope we can also improve the Bill, which is the intent of us all. There have been suggestions on ways to improve its wording, in order to treat children in special schools and their parents with a bit more care and to have a statement of costs and benefits. These do not seem unreasonable. I am afraid I am hearing a bit of a “state knows best” argument—that it should have 28 days to give a reason for its decision whereas parents should have only 15. That does not sound very fair to me and I am not sure it will sound fair to the British public, let alone to home-educating families. However,…
- Section 47 has a very broad class of orders — some are extremely serious, some frankly irrelevant to whether a child should be able to be home-educated. Home-educated children are twice as likely to be referred to children's social services, yet much less likely to have a child protection plan result. That points to prejudice-driven over-referral. We need to understand how officials can feel comfortable making informed professional decisions rather than feeling that they must refuse. A proper tribunal appeals process would help with exactly that.
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 206. My concern here is that Section 47 has a very broad class of orders. Some are extremely serious and some, frankly, are irrelevant to whether someone should be concerned about a child being home educated. The amendment is to get some sense, which I am very happy to leave to further discussions, of how one deals, for instance, with spurious complaints from a former abusive parent who just wants to mess up the other parent’s life. The overall statistics show that home-educated children are twice as likely to be referred to children’s social services, yet are much less likely to have a child protection plan result from that referral. There is a prejudice towards referring children who are home educated or whose parents are thinking of home educating them. We need to understand that in order to provide some circumstances that allow officials in local authorities to feel comfortable about taking informed professional decisions, rather than feeling vulnerable doing anything other than refusing. I look forward to discussing this at a later opportunity. I beg to move.
- Amendment 207 has two parts: extending local authority discretion to withhold consent to children receiving services under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and extending it to any child who has ever been on a child protection plan. Both are discretionary — no blanket refusal. As drafted, the Bill puts all special-school children in scope but not those with active safeguarding or neglect concerns under Section 17. That feels the wrong way round. And on children who have ever had a child protection plan — Sara Sharif had been on the child protection register at birth, came off it, was removed from school, and died. The proposed law as drafted would not have made any difference to her. I want to state that reality plainly.
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 207. Ever the optimist, I hope the Government will take it seriously and bring it back on Report with a “g” in front of it. The amendment has two parts: the first extends the right of a local authority to withhold consent to home education for a child or their family who is in receipt of services under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989; the second extends this to children who have ever been classified as a child in need of protection under Section 47 of the Act. To be clear, both parts would give local authorities just the discretion to withhold consent on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, I am not proposing a blanket refusal, but, as drafted, the Government’s position is not altogether clear, although I suspect that the noble Baroness will tell me that my drafting is not altogether clear either. All children who are in special schools would now be within scope, as we debated in the earlier group, of the local authority’s right to withhold consent, but not those under Section 17 where there are safeguarding or neglect concerns. That just feels the wrong way round in terms of priorities. I appreciate that my drafting could focus more narrowly on those children defined under Section 17 of the Act to focus on safeguarding and neglect, but it is curious not to focus on those children. Unlike my noble friends, I do not think it is easy to get either Section 47 or Section 17 status and I worry that the bar is too high with just the current Section 47. On the inclusion of children who have ever been subject to a Section 47 child protection plan, we talked earlier about the tragic case of Sara Sharif. The Minister in the other place said that “we cannot say for sure what might have made a difference, but we will learn lessons from the future … local child safeguarding practice review”.—[Official Report, Commons, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 30/1/25; col. 297.] I think I am right in saying that Sara Sharif had been pu…
Section 47 needs to be taken seriously, and at the same time there's a real question about where we draw the borderline — whether there are cases where Section 47 need not be an automatic barrier, or whether different process should apply. And as my noble friend said, the Section 47 process can be hijacked to disrupt or harass in certain kinds of relationships. A proper tribunal to take the sensitivities of particular cases into account would help enormously.I want to underline the points made by my noble friend Lord Lucas on Amendments 205 and 206, which I have also put my name to. Section 47 is obviously a very difficult area for the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, just underlined, and it obviously needs to be taken seriously. At the same time, as my noble friend Lord Lucas said, a debate needs to be had about where we are drawing the borderline, whether there are areas where Section 47 need not be an automatic barrier to home education, whether there needs to be a further process, or whether the process is different in some cases compared with to others. At the moment, it is a very broad and straightforward yes or no test. As we know, as has been said and no doubt will be said again, there is evidence that this Section 47 process can be hijacked in certain circumstances and in certain kinds of relationships just to disrupt, cause trouble or make life more difficult, so we have to be sensitive to that. I certainly think that, again, it is something perhaps better explored in these famous August discussions than necessarily in the detail now, but it is important not to take a completely black and white view on this. I will not labour the point, but I also think it underlines the need to have a proper appeal process and tribunal to take the sensitivities of the particular cases properly into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, points out that intervention in schools can be a protection. The Government's thinking about how that will work in future would be well worth hearing.My Lords, very briefly, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, points out that intervention in schools can be a protection. The Government’s thinking about the future of this and the future interaction would be well worth hearing.
- On Amendments 205 and 206: the consent mechanism is not an automatic bar. Even where a child is subject to a Section 47 inquiry, the local authority may well consent to home education — the point is that it must consider the circumstances. For a child to be subject to a Section 47 inquiry they will already have hit a threshold of actual or likely significant harm; that is a high threshold and should not be initiated purely because a parent wants to home-educate. I understand the concern about malicious allegations in abusive relationships, but local authorities do have robust processes to handle exactly that, and I could perhaps provide more examples of how they handle such circumstances. On Amendment 207: Section 17 is a very broad group — 399,500 children in need in 2024 compared with 49,900 on child protection plans. Including all of them would be disproportionate and overly burdensome, roughly doubling the consent workload. I take the noble Baroness's point about focusing on safeguarding elements of Section 17, and I can come back to her on that. I will write to her separately on her point about children who have ever been on a child protection plan, including the Sara Sharif case.
In group 4, we have an interesting combination of some amendments suggesting that the Government are going too far in their proposals around the hurdle for having to seek consent to home-educate and others suggesting that they are not going far enough. I will try to find a way through the centre of this, because what they all have in common is seeking to explore the rationale for the local authority to have to provide consent before a parent can withdraw a child from school to home-educate—in this case, where the child is subject to a child protection inquiry I turn to Amendments 205 and 206. Just to be clear, the Government believe that the consent measure with respect to Section 47 inquiries provides an important but proportionate safety net for children subject to child protection inquiries and plans. To clarify something that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said and to reiterate this, the consent provisions are not an automatic bar to these parents home-educating. It could well be the case that, notwithstanding the fact that a child was subject to Section 47 inquiries or even under a child protection plan, the local authority felt it was appropriate for, or was willing to give consent for, that child to be home-educated. To reiterate what I said, it is a requirement for the local authority to consider the circumstances of that child, given that they have come under the auspices of children’s social care through Section 47 of the Children Act. Our view is that this should be done as part of its wider decision-making on whether a child needs protection and the planning that follows that. There is some suggestion, which I really disagree with, that local authorities would find it easy to jump to a Section 47 inquiry simply to prevent a parent being able to home-educate their child. There are a lot of consequences to undertaking a Section 47 inquiry. I would find it hard to understand why a local authority would be so keen to prevent a parent home-educating if there wer…
- There are over 400,000 children with an EHCP who will be within the consent framework. I take the point that the vast majority of Section 17 children won't be home-educated. But we have one group that is in, and another group — where we suspect potential abuse or neglect — that is out. That feels like an odd split.
From memory, are there not 400-and-something thousand children with an EHCP who will be within the kind of consent framework? Obviously, the vast majority of the 400,000 children who are under Section 17 are not going to be home-educated. I take the noble Baroness’s point; I am just trying to say that we have one group that is in and another group, where we suspect potential abuse or neglect, that is out. That just feels like an odd split.
- For special schools, it is not enough to have an EHCP to need consent — the child must be attending a special school. The reasoning is that the consent process considers the impact of removing a child from the very specific, high-level support that made a special school necessary. That is why special schools are in scope.
I recognise that point. On the special school point, it is not sufficient to have an EHCP to need consent to withdraw your child to home-educate; it is if they are in a special school. The rationale there is that you are changing their schooling and removing them, by definition, from something that contains very specific levels of support, otherwise it would not be a special school. It is the consideration of that impact that is the reasoning behind the special school intention here. So we are confident that the consent measure, as drafted, is focused on the right groups of children and that it is proportionate. I hope that I have demonstrated the proportionality of this measure and that it is part of a wider set of activities that we have discussed previously on the Bill, about strengthening requirements to protect children at the earliest opportunity. I hope therefore that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
- I didn't hear the Minister's response on children who have been on a child protection plan. Could she write to me on that specifically?
Even more briefly, I did not hear the Minister’s response in relation to children who have been on a child protection plan. Could she be very kind and write to me, in the interests of time, because that is also extremely important?
- Yes, I understand the point and particularly the reference to Sara Sharif — we are still awaiting the detailed review from the safeguarding panel. I will write to the noble Baroness on that specific group of children.
Yes, I recognise that. There are still questions about burden there, but I understand the noble Baroness’s point, and particularly her reference to the Sara Sharif case. On that case, we are still awaiting the detailed review from the safeguarding panel in order to be able to determine the causes there, but I understand her point and will write to her about that specific group of children. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
- The noble Baroness's Amendment 207 convinces me: if we can insert a proper tribunal into this process, all these difficult questions about who falls in scope will flow much more easily for everybody. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her replies. I look forward to meetings after today to go into these matters further, but I very much understand what my noble friend Lady Barran is saying with her Amendment 207. It convinces me that, if we can insert a tribunal into this process, we will make all these difficult questions flow much more easily for everybody. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Amendments 208, 216, 217, 220 and 225 are eminently appropriate for discussion before September. But Amendment 222 again raises the need for a tribunal to deal with tricky cases — we need something effective, something fair and open. That is what tribunals are for.
My Lords, my Amendments 208, 216, 217, 220 and 225 seem eminently appropriate for discussing between today and September. Amendment 222 again raises the need for a tribunal to deal with tricky cases. We need something effective, we need something fair and open, and that is what tribunals are. I beg to move.
Amendment 209 would require local authorities to ensure they have offered a young carer's needs assessment when notified that a young carer is being withdrawn from school. There are more than 15,000 children caring for parents or siblings for more than 50 hours a week — more than the average working week. If such a child is withdrawn from school, caring responsibilities typically increase, and school may be the one place where they receive support and can have a normal life. This amendment would catch cases where withdrawal is actually facilitating more caring at the expense of education.My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 209 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord Storey and Lord Watson. Amendment 209 would require local authorities to ensure that they have offered a young carer’s needs assessment if they are notified of a pupil who is a young carer being withdrawn from school. This is to ensure that withdrawing a young carer from school does not result in increases in their caring responsibilities to the extent that it prejudices their education. I am vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Young Carers, an active APPG producing reports on the challenges facing young carers and enabling parliamentarians to meet young carers, virtually and physically, to hear at first hand the challenges that confront them. A recent report told us of the difficulties that they face when their responsibilities as carers are not recognised by school and others, and that too many young carers cannot thereby access the support they need. By way of background to this amendment, there are more than 15,000 children caring for parents or siblings for more than 50 hours a week. That is more than the average working week—and of course, they have to squeeze in their education on top of that. One issue that young carer services have shared with the APPG is that there are cases where a young carer is caring for a parent—for example, with a severe mental illness—and is withdrawn from school. Not being in school then results in greater responsibilities falling on those young shoulders, and in even more isolation from the support that a school can give them.
- Any child taking on those responsibilities is not having a childhood. School may be the only point where they get support and some normal life. If you spend your entire life looking after somebody else and they inconveniently live for quite a long time, you could find yourself in middle age without qualifications, having been de-skilled socially. That should not be put on someone that young. I hope the Minister will say something positive.
My Lords, I will be brief. I can see why my noble friend Lord Storey added his name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young. Any child taking on responsibilities like those described in that amendment is not having a childhood. In reality, they are getting through from day to day—they cannot be doing much more. School may be the only point where they will get some support and some normal life; enabling them to have that may be the only way that they can have a future. If you spend your entire life looking after somebody else, and they inconveniently live for quite a long time, you could find yourself in middle age without an education or qualifications and having been de-social skilled—I do not know if that is a correct expression. Your life will have been taken over by another function. That should not be put on somebody that young. When she comes to respond, I hope that the Minister will say something positive, because this is something that we should deal with at the first opportunity.
- We ought to be much better at collecting information about young carers. AI makes that easier, and the government AI team is genuinely impressive — one of the most enthusiastic and effective teams I have encountered in government. I urge the Department for Education to make contact and use AI to tackle this difficult data-collection problem without adding burdens to already stretched organisations.
My Lords, I very much support what my noble friend said about young carers. We ought to be much better at collecting information on what is going on with young carers. The whole business of collecting information is getting easier with AI. The government AI team is a sight to be seen. I have not, in government, come across such an enthusiastic and effective team. I very much hope that the Department for Education will make contact and make use of the blockers. When you are faced with a difficult problem and need to find a way of collecting data that does not put a burden on the organisations that are having to do that data collection, and it is diverse and complicated, AI is a really good approach. I urge the Government to help look after young carers by taking that step.
Amendment 209 matters because young carers are so often invisible. The Children and Families Act 2014 made it easier for young carers to get needs assessments; the Care Act 2014 requires local authorities to consider young carers when assessing adult care needs. Adding this requirement to Clause 30 would ensure that, when a child is being withdrawn from school, the local authority actively checks whether the withdrawal will push yet more caring onto young shoulders. Children are children first.My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 209 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to which I have added my name, and I thank him for introducing it so effectively. A young carer is defined as someone who is under the age of 18 and is looking after a family member or close friend. Often being forced to balance school and their social life with caring duties could seem an impossible task, which can take its toll on a young carer’s mental health. That said, on the other side of the coin, with the right level of support, many of the skills that they learn while caring are later transferable to adult life and the world of work. All too often, however, young carers are invisible. If adults outside their family, particularly teachers and school support staff, are unaware of their caring responsibilities, it is unlikely that the help that they need will reach them, so it is important that we recognise young carers and learn how we can help them, because being a young carer is undoubtedly demanding. They assume adult responsibilities and worries while still a child and have to prepare for and get to school, study for exams and look after themselves. During the pandemic, the Children’s Society launched the young carers count campaign, which highlighted the experiences of young carers and called for a child’s status as a carer to be included in the school census. The DfE acknowledged the value of that, because in 2022 it began to include young carers as a category in that census. Now that data is being recorded, a much clearer picture of the number of young carers across England and how they are impacted by their caring responsibilities is beginning to emerge. With proper resourcing, this should help significantly to improve the support that they receive. The Children and Families Act 2014 amended the Children Act to make it easier for young carers to get an assessment of their needs and introduced whole-family approaches to assessment and support. Local authorities…
Three of my grandchildren were home-schooled; two are now at Cambridge and the third made a successful film about autism. Home-schooling can work extremely well — for some children it is the answer. Amendment 224 raises a simpler point: when a parent clearly no longer consents to the schooling arrangement and is heading toward deregistration, fining them for unauthorised absence adds financial stress without getting the child back to school. Are financial penalties genuinely useful in all these situations?My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 224, which I think is less contentious than the last issue that I raised in your Lordships’ House. The amendment is about deregistration from school when it is triggered by crises, or whatever. Taking your child to school is a voluntary arrangement at the point of enrolment, but parents get fined for unauthorised absence, even if they go into the sort of crisis that will eventually lead to them deregistering. I do not know anything about education, despite being in education until I was 18, and then at university, but I have vested interest because three of my grandchildren were home-schooled. Two of them are now at Cambridge—one is doing history and the other politics—and the other one has made a comedy film about autism, which is a condition she has, and that is doing incredibly well. Those three children have been home-schooled and have reached a level that many children do not get to regardless, so I would argue that home-schooling can work extremely well. It is important to remember that, for some children, it is the answer. We want to avoid government overreach in these situations. It seems obvious to me that, where a parent clearly no longer consents to the education arrangement with the school, it makes sense that they do not get fined. The fines do not get the children back to school, but they do add financial worries to the sense of stress. I understand why the Government reach for deterrence in order to give children the best education that they can, but sometimes school is not the right answer and I ask the Minister to consider whether financial penalties are useful in all these situations.
- Amendment 218 would require any local authority officer making decisions on elective home education to have at least two years' personal experience of home-educating their own children. This is a practical proposal: you cannot understand the reality unless you have walked that path, and the evidence is stark — home-educated children are twice as likely to be referred to children's social services yet no more likely to be placed on a child protection plan, which points to systematic over-referral driven by ignorance. Amendment 223 would establish an independent home education ombudsman to investigate complaints against local authorities that overstep — because at present if a parent is mistreated there is no meaningful avenue of redress. And the testimonies are sobering: a military family's local authority contacted the husband's workplace repeatedly; a home-educating doctor was followed in public after deregistering a daughter with SEND.
My Lords I rise to speak to my Amendments 218, 223, 381, 403 and 418. Together, they seek to introduce fairness, balance and accountability into the Bill and to support families who are simply choosing a lawful, legitimate path of home education. I will first focus on Amendment 218, which will require any local authority officer making decisions about elective home education to have at least two years’ personal experience of home educating their own children. This is not an ideological proposal but a practical one. I recall being asked once by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to help create a Teach First programme for social workers. I declined, not because I doubted the value of new graduates but because lived experience matters. Pattern recognition, nuance and trust are not easily taught, especially if you have only recently graduated. You cannot understand the reality of raising and educating a child outside school unless you have walked that path yourself. To ask someone with no such experience to judge a family’s educational approach is like asking a man to speak with authority on childbirth or someone without children to dictate how others should raise theirs. According to Education Otherwise, home-educated children are twice as likely to be referred to children’s social services as their schooled peers, and yet no more likely to be placed on a child protection plan. This points to systematic overreferral, driven in part by ignorance and in part by a narrative that wrongly associates home education with safeguarding risk. This amendment offers one step towards correcting that imbalance. Case law supports this. In R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester 2014, the Supreme Court held that administrative decisions that infringe individual rights must be informed by proper context and not rely on rigid or generic assumptions. Without understanding the diversity and nuance of home education, decisions risk being fundamentally flawed. If flawed decisions are made p…
- Amendment 209 is not just about preventing harm — it provides the opportunity for the child to be home-educated if that really is the right thing for them. It is an important and presumably relatively small concession in terms of numbers. I hope the Minister will consider it favourably.
My Lords, I support Amendment 209 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and others, in part for the reasons given so eloquently by the supporters of the amendment, but also because it provides the opportunity for the child concerned to be home-educated if that is the right thing for them. It is not just about ensuring that being home-educated is in the child’s best interest, but about providing the opportunity for that to happen. This is an important, and presumably relatively small, concession in terms of numbers, because here we are talking only about people who are in special schools, although I know there is another amendment later. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment favourably.
- On Amendment 208: schools hold the child's address and so know which local authorities to notify — and Working Together to Safeguard Children is clear that schools must be part of child protection planning. On Amendment 209: I don't disagree with the importance of young carers; the local authority will have every opportunity to consider the child's full circumstances, including caring responsibilities, as part of the consent decision. Under new section 436C(2), local authorities will be expected to record the fact that a child is a young carer where they are home-educated, to ensure support reaches them. On Amendments 216 and 217: all parents must be notified of a consent decision, unless exceptional circumstances apply. Amendment 217's proposal that domestic-abuse allegations always constitute exceptional circumstances risks being exploited to prevent the other parent being informed. Guidance will clarify what 'exceptional circumstances' means. On Amendments 218 and 381: I think it is possible to be an experienced practitioner without specific lived experience of home educating one's own children. Requiring it would exclude around 99% of the workforce and assume that one person's experience is reflective of all home-educating parents. Working Together guidance specifies who should be involved in safeguarding decisions, and the department's home educators' forum helps inform our work.
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in group 5. These amendments mainly concern the requirement to seek consent should a parent wish to withdraw their child from school in particular circumstances. Just to reiterate, we recognise that most home-educating families provide safe and suitable education in the best interests of their children. The consent measure applies only to specific groups of children—where there are child protection concerns or the child has a special school placement. We are confident that this is a proportionate response to help to ensure that these children’s needs are met and are protected. With respect to the detail in the amendments, I turn first to Amendment 208, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the requirement for a school to notify the local authority responsible for the child if that is different from the local authority where the school is located when a parent intends to withdraw the child to home educate. To be clear, schools will hold the child’s address; therefore, they will know which local authorities to notify. Working Together to Safeguard Children, the statutory safeguarding guidance, is clear that schools should be included in child protection activity and planning, and therefore should also be aware of which local authorities should be contacted. It is crucial that schools retain the responsibility to verify whether consent is needed for home education. Without this, children in scope of the consent process could be mistakenly removed from school rolls without permission, or the consent decision could be delayed. Turning to Amendment 209, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young, which has rightly received the most attention in this group of amendments and would require a carer’s needs assessment before the child is withdrawn from school, I commend the noble Lord on championing the needs of young carers. To be clear, I certainly do not demur from his overarching argument—and that of other noble Lords,…
- Before leaving Amendment 209 — could the Minister say something, or write to me, about the delays young carers currently experience in getting their needs assessed?
Before the noble Baroness leaves Amendment 209, will she say something, or perhaps write to me, about the delay in getting a needs assessment for young carers?
- Yes — I will write to the noble Lord separately on the speed of young carers' assessments.
Sorry, yes, I remember that the noble Lord asked about that. I will write to him on the broader issue of the speed with which young carers are getting their assessments. I will follow that up separately. Amendments 216 and 217, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or amend the requirement for local authorities to notify any other parent of the child of their home education consent decision. In law, all parents have responsibility for their child’s education, and it is therefore necessary that all parents are notified, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Amendment 216 would remove this. Including exceptional circumstances provides safeguards where a parent does not have to be notified: for example, in cases of domestic abuse. Of course, children must be protected from domestic abuse. Amendment 217, however, states that “exceptional circumstances will always apply where domestic abuse is alleged or established”. We are concerned that this could have unintended consequences, including a parent making an accusation of domestic abuse to prevent the other being informed of the consent decision. Again, sadly, local authorities are quite used to the way they need to behave and the care they need to take in circumstances of allegations of domestic abuse. However, we will provide further detail regarding what “exceptional circumstances” means in this context in statutory guidance. As I have said previously, we will engage with stakeholders when updating that guidance. I turn to Amendments 218 and 381 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. Amendment 218 would require local authority staff to have at least two years of personal home education experience of their own children before making consent decisions. Amendment 381 would require at least one person with direct home education experience on safeguarding panels for decisions related to home-educated children. I think it is possible to be an experienced practitioner without specific lived experience; howe…
- To clarify: the lived-experience point is not about whether men can work with women giving birth — it is about whether someone can speak with equal authority on a process they have never personally undergone. Even if a professional argument applied, home education has its own philosophies and nuances that current professional training does not cover — so the usual professional-expertise defence is weaker here than the Minister suggests.
To clarify, I was in no way saying that men could not work with women in childbirth. I was trying to make a point about speaking as authoritatively on the process of giving birth as a man as if you were a woman. In no way would I want the Minister to interpret me as saying that one could not be a male midwife or anything like that, but, as some of us know, when in certain circles I have talked about something feeling like childbirth, I have quite rightly been told off, because I have never given birth. There is something about that lived experience that I am pointing to. I am not making the point that people cannot work in certain professional settings in that sense. We are crossing over from professional expertise into lived experience, saying that a parent can or cannot raise their child and parent-educate. Even if you were to use the professional argument, I am not sure that having that determined by someone who may not have that experience—when, right now, even the professional in this context is not trained in the philosophies and the different nuances of home education—is quite right in this context.
- The department's home educators' forum is exactly the kind of channel through which lived experience should feed into policy. But the amendment's suggestion that you cannot make a professional social-work or education decision without having personally home-educated would make this area wholly different from every other area professionals work in. Our trained, dedicated practitioners understand and champion the needs of the children they work with — and Working Together guidance specifies the right range of expertise to draw on.
I certainly think it is right that we should attempt to ensure that people with lived experience are a key part of all areas of policy. That is why, for example, I talked earlier about the home educators’ forum that the department has brought together to help to inform our work here and the guidance. The point that the noble Lord was making went well beyond that. The suggestion that you could not make a professional social work or education decision in this area unless you had lived experience would make this area wholly different from any other area that professionals were making decisions about, and that is the stumbling block for this amendment. We have a workforce of trained, dedicated practitioners who understand and champion the needs of the children they work with across schools and children’s social care. These amendments, in effect, would exclude around 99% of the population and, of course, would assume that one professional’s experience of home education is reflective of all parents. Working Together guidance is clear which practitioners should be involved in safeguarding decision-making and the importance of including children and families in that as well. We are confident that the Bill measures, and wider children’s social care reform that strengthens the protection of children, will mean that local authorities can draw on a range of expertise when making decisions—and so they should. Amendment 220 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 224 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would allow a child not to attend school prior to receiving consent from the local authority. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was not here for the earlier parts of the debate—for which I do not condemn her—that the points she made about the very successful home education experience of the children she was talking about who are close to her has very much been reflected in the comments that other noble Lords made earlier. We are clear that there are man…
- I'm grateful. I'll keep pressing on tribunals — not attached to any particular form, but the Secretary of State route is not effective and I want to understand the Government's proposals for how it should work before September; perhaps I will come to love it. On Amendment 208: knowing a child's address is not the same as knowing their local authority — that requires a lookup, and joint-custody arrangements make the address question complicated. The Government will need to provide that lookup for schools.
I am grateful for the Minister’s extensive responses to the amendments. She is right that I will keep coming back about tribunals. I am not attached to any particular form—a tribunal, an ombudsman or what the Government propose. My concern is that it should be effective, and my experience of the Secretary of State route has been that it is not. I am very happy to take the opportunity of the gap between now and 1 September to learn more about the Government’s proposals as to how the Secretary of State route should work, and it may be that I will come to love it as much as she does—that would be nice. On Amendment 208, knowing a child’s address is not the same as knowing their local authority. There is nothing in the address that says what the local authority is; you need to have a lookup. Local education authorities are not necessarily coterminous with what we think, so the Government would have to provide a lookup. Also, in circumstances where children are in joint custody, the question of their address can be complicated and moot. In both circumstances, there needs to be some help from the Government to enable a school to be sure that, in all circumstances, it determines the right local authority with responsibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Amendment 211 goes to the deepest issue in the Bill: lines 39–40 on page 51 assert that local authority officers are the right people to determine what is in the best interests of a child. For 150 years it has been accepted that parents are the first judges of that. This is a fundamental change — if the local authority's judgment is better for children being taken out of school, why isn't it better for all children? Why shouldn't it decide which school a child attends, or which exams they take? There is no principled edge here; once this direction is taken it will carry on. And which officers will be making this judgment? Local authorities used to have large school-improvement departments staffed with education experts; they are much thinner now. This needs to be questioned hard at its first instance.
My Lords, Amendment 211 goes to a much deeper part of this Bill: the assertion in lines 39 and 40 on page 51 that those in a local authority are the right people to determine what is in the best interests of a child. For the past 150 years it has been accepted that it is the parents who are the first people to determine what the best interests of a child are, so this is a fundamental change in education legislation, which may run out into all other aspects of the relationship between parents and children. If the local authority is the best judge in this space, why is it not also the best judge of which school a child should attend, or many other aspects of the child’s educational journey—what exams they should take or which university they should go to? Why is the local authority’s judgment being inserted here against all precedent? Who in the local authority is making this judgment? Local authorities used to be staffed with a big school improvement department and lots of people who knew their way around education. They are much thinner now. How on earth is a local authority staffed to take this decision? Is it guaranteed to have the expertise? Will there be a special cadre of people capable of taking this sort of decision, and trained and experienced in it? I find it very hard to understand why the Government wish to take this role away from parents. It is a big, fundamental change and something that gives me great cause for concern. Again, it brings me back, as the Minister will expect, to the idea that, if we are to have something like this, there has to be an effective right of appeal to someone who has access to a much wider and deeper pool of information and judgment. My other amendment would mean that, if a local authority is making the judgment, it must make it as a real judgment—how the school they are thinking of placing the child in actually does for children like the child concerned. It must be a careful, individual judgment, and not a judgment in princi…
- The principle that parents have primary responsibility for their children's education has been in statute for the best part of 150 years — currently in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. This Bill qualifies it for the first time, and as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, says, in something of a muddle. Is it the Government's intention to overturn that very long-standing principle? If not, why does this draft appear to do so? And is it worth substituting an objective positive test — along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp — for this broad and novel 'best interests' formulation?
My Lords, I have similar doubts and concerns about Amendment 211—or rather the problem it is designed to deal with—to my noble friend Lord Lucas. To elaborate, the principle that parents have the primary responsibility to provide education for children has been in statutes of various forms for the best part of 150 years and is currently in Section 7 of the 1996 Act. There is a qualification to that, for reasons of cost and efficiency, but no qualification for anything else. My noble friend Lord Lucas is right to say that this is the first time we have seen this very important principle qualified. The fact that it is done almost in passing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, in a bit of a muddle, makes one wonder how much thought has been given to this, and whether indeed the intention is to go back on this very long-standing principle or not. It does not seem to have been very clearly thought through. At the moment, we have a provision that says that local authorities “must refuse consent” to the subset of children who are caught by these new provisions if they think that home education is not in the best interests of those children. That is most egregious for children in special educational schools but also for the Section 47 part of the definition, which, as we have been discussing, potentially has quite a low threshold. My questions to the Minister are these. Is it intended with this provision to overturn that very long-standing principle? If it is not, can she explain why it is not and why this draft does not do that? Is it worth thinking a bit harder about the drafting of this section and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, substituting some sort of objective positive test rather than this very broad and novel “best interests” test?
- The idea that the state judges what is in a child's best interests is reasonable under certain circumstances — but does the state have the resources and structure to do it? What criteria, what staffing, will be put in place? On special educational needs in particular, it is often the parent who has to struggle to get help; if the Minister can explain the process by which that judgment will be made, everyone would be a good deal more comfortable.
My Lords, the idea that the best interests of the child would be judged by the state is one that is reasonable under certain circumstances. It comes back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Does it have enough resources to do this? Does it have the structure? If the Minister could tell us, now or in a letter, what criteria, what resources, will be put forward, everybody would be a little bit more comfortable with what is happening here. But I am afraid that the fact of the matter on special educational needs is that it is the parent who often struggles to get the help they need. We all know why—we have all been through the system and we understand it—I just want to know the process by which we get there. If we get one that sounds reasonable, I am happier.
- My noble friends make a powerful point of principle, and I agree with them in part. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, may well be right that the drafting is a muddle when it comes to special-school children. But for children on a child protection plan or subject to a Section 47 inquiry, we have already established there is actual or likely significant harm — and at that point some form of 'best interests' check seems right, even if 'best interests' is not the cleanest formulation.
My Lords, my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, have made a powerful case for the point of principle that underpins this group of amendments. I confess to agreeing with them only in part. The point of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that there may be a muddle in the drafting, may be a fair one because of the discussion we had earlier on my Amendment 204 about the automatic inclusion of children in special schools within the framework of local authority consent. So I am sympathetic to the points my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, make on children in special schools and the idea that the state knows what is best for them. Where I am not sympathetic—I respect their opinion and I think they have a point—it is because, on balance, when a child is subject to a child protection plan or a child protection investigation, we have already established that it is either confirmed that the child is at risk of significant harm or there are serious concerns that the child could be at risk of serious harm. Whether the “best interest” is the best way of framing it, I do not know, but I think that at that point and for that group of children—
- But that is almost exactly what my amendment proposes — replacing 'in the child's best interests' with language tied to the child being at risk, as found by the inquiry. Would the noble Baroness agree that is a cleaner way to do it?
The amendment I have proposed uses almost the same words as those the noble Baroness has just used: rather than using the phrase “in the child’s best interest”, why not refer to being at risk, and abuse, as found by the tribunal? It seems much clearer to do it that way, and I wonder whether she would agree.
- The noble Lord is right, and I am grateful. One would then need to think carefully about the special-school group, because the noble Lord's drafting may not have been designed with them in mind.
The noble Lord is right and I am grateful to him for again drawing my attention and that of the Committee to his drafting. I guess one would then need to consider the group of children in special schools, because I would be surprised if the noble Lord’s drafting applied to so many of them.
- The phrase 'in the child's best interests' appears here and nowhere else in the Bill — and the drafting seems internally contradictory. New subsection (6)(b) sets up two grounds for refusal as alternatives: either it would be in the child's best interests to attend school, or no suitable arrangements have been made. But if they are true alternatives, the first ground could override suitable home-education arrangements simply because the authority thinks school is preferable. Amendment 211A would replace that broad 'best interests' test with a specific objective test: that the inquiry has led the authority to conclude the child is at risk of significant harm under section 31(9) of the Children Act 1989. Keep this about child protection, not a general welfare judgment.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 211A, which is in my name. I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is one of the biggest issues in the Bill. Why the words “in the child’s best interests” have appeared here and not elsewhere seems strange. They seem slightly out of place. It may be that it is late in the evening, and I am going slightly brain-dead, but it seems that what is written in the Bill is internally contradictory. It says that the local authority “must refuse consent if the local authority considers …that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school, or”— going back to my education, I assume this is the law of excluded middle— “that no suitable arrangements have been made for the education of the child otherwise than at school”. If it is alternatives, then presumably new Section 434A(6)(b)(i) means that there are cases when suitable arrangements have been made for the education of the child otherwise than in school, but it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school. Unless I have that completely wrong, it seems that this is something of a muddle anyway in the presentation of this account. The bigger point, rather than simply that, is the one the noble Lord makes about who decides what is in the best interests and what we mean by it. I have suggested in my amendment to leave out “that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school” and replace it with the actions mentioned further up the page in new subsection (4)(a) where the inquiries “have led the local authority to conclude that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of—” the Children Act 1989. In other words, keep this about abuse and about child protection, and do not introduce the wider consideration of “in the child’s best interest”, whatever that…
- Amendment 212 would place evidence — not mere suspicion — at the heart of consent decisions, requiring a local authority to produce evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy a court that withdrawal would cause greater harm before it can refuse. This restates the core principle of the Children Act 1989 that parental authority is paramount unless proven otherwise. Schools can also be harmful environments — children are being groomed in some of them. Why should a parent trying to remove their child from a harmful situation have to prove to an official that the alternative is safer? And without a tribunal or ombudsman to catch structural errors, judicial review becomes not just possible but likely.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 212 and the related amendment to Clause 30. Taken together, these amendments aim to restore vital balance and proportion to the question of whether a parent may withdraw their child from school. They would place evidence, not mere suspicion, at the heart of decisions to profoundly shape children’s lives, reaffirming that it is parents who are the primary guardians of their child’s welfare, unless proven otherwise. As others have mentioned, Amendment 212 addresses the critical flaw in the Bill: trapping children in harmful environments by allowing local authorities to withhold consent for withdrawal without first producing clear, documented evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy courts that such a withdrawal would cause greater harm. This is not some radical departure; it simply restates the core principle of the Children Act 1989 that the welfare of the child and the authority of the parents to act in their child’s best interest must be paramount. From the groups that we have discussed so far, one of the concerns I have is that although we must recognise the sterling efforts of local authority officials, the department and the Minister, we must not always presume that in every case the state knows best. Mistakes are made, and from what I have heard so far I am worried that there is no real consciousness that there could be mistakes that would warrant either a tribunal or an ombudsman, and, in this case, no recognition that schools can potentially be a cause of harm as well—for example, if children are being groomed or exploited at school. Why is there this presumption that the parent must prove to the official that the alternative to school that they are about to provide will be safer, when in some cases they may be trying to get their child out of a harmful environment—for example, that particular school? This is a real issue. Scandals we have had in the past. Horizon, and even Rotherham—if I dare to mention that in this pl…
- The 'best interests' ground is not changing the fundamental right of parents to home-educate — it only applies once you are in the very narrow consent zone. Parents of children on child protection plans or in special schools may still have the right to home-educate; we simply introduce a process. If you do have a consent system for children in these circumstances, you need criteria for the local authority's decision, and 'best interests' does not feel unreasonable. You could envisage a situation where there is suitable education on offer but the protective role of school — being seen by teachers, being away from a harmful home environment — is itself in the child's best interests, regardless of the education question.
At the heart of this group of amendments is the concern about the use and definition of the expression “best interest of the child”. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others suggested that the use of the “best interests” ground in Clause 30 is a fundamental change to parents’ rights. I reiterate the quite narrow scope of the use of “best interests” in this clause. Remember that what we are dealing with here is not the fundamental decision about whether a parent has the right to remove their child from a school to educate them at home. They have that right, unless some very specific circumstances are met—when they may still have the right, but we introduce a process for the local authority to consent to whether it is appropriate for that to happen. I do not think I need to run through once again that narrow category of children and circumstances where, as we are proposing here, the local authority should be enabled at least to consider the issue of whether, in those circumstances, it is appropriate for the child to be removed from school. I know that some noble Lords do not believe that there should be any need for consent and therefore do not believe that the criteria that the Government have chosen of Section 47 inquiries, child protection plans or special schools are appropriate. I accept that but, if you do have a consent system—and there is quite a lot of support for the idea that an additional stage is appropriate for children in these circumstances—you then need to decide the criteria for the local authority’s decision-making. New subsection (6)(b) makes it clear what those criteria should be in these very specific circumstances. It does not feel unreasonable to me that those criteria should be what the local authority believes to be the best interests of the child. We can assume that the parents believe in the best interests of their child, but in these very specific circumstances, because of the nature of the children, we think the child’s rights might overrid…
- But that is exactly the problem: if a local authority officer with little home-education experience sees a suitable education plan, the first alternative ground in new subsection (6)(b) still lets them override it by saying they think school is best for the child's welfare. How do we stop that from happening?
To build on that, if you had a local authority officer with not much experience of home education—given that that is apparently not available—who is shown suitable education arrangements by the parent planning to take their child into home education, then that first new sub-paragraph could allow them still to override those arrangements, which they have agreed are suitable, by saying that they think it would be best if the child attended a school. How do we deal with that precise situation which she has said could happen? Do we not need to work this out so that our wonderful local authority officials are not confused when reading this guidance and say, “Well, I can still override the parents because I think it is right that they stay in school, because that is in their best interests”?
- You could envisage exactly that scenario — a child on a child protection plan where, notwithstanding suitable education at home, the protective role of being in school is what is in that child's best interests. That is why the two grounds are structured as alternatives for children in those specific circumstances.
That is what I was saying. You could envisage circumstances in which there is a child on a child protection plan, notwithstanding that there might be suitable education, where the protective role of being in school would be in that child’s best interests and being away from the school might be against them, regardless of what the other education provision might be. Let us not forget that this would be a consideration only for children for whom there are child protection concerns or for children in special schools, where, to be fair, it would more likely be about the appropriateness of the education, but could be about the other support available for a child that would not be available in other circumstances, notwithstanding the question of education, because of their needs that required them to be put into the special school in the first place.
- If the officer has a safeguarding concern, I fully understand pursuing that route. But the wording as drafted gives room for an officer to conflate a concern about the quality of education with a concern about the child's safety — and those should be kept distinct.
I can fully appreciate that, given the scope here, if there was a safeguarding concern then one might want to pursue the route the Minister is talking about as the officer in question is trying to make that decision. However, the way that this is worded, even if the parents or family subject to Section 47 have found a way to provide suitable education, gives the officer the room to say, “I am concerned about the safety of the child”, when it is more that they do not like the education being provided.
- On Amendment 212: requiring evidence sufficient to satisfy a court that withdrawal would cause greater harm before consent can be refused is wholly impractical. Local authorities do evidence their decisions and do draw on multi-agency expertise, but that threshold would make proportionate, timely decisions impossible. On Amendment 215: the consent process is not about comparing the merits of the specific school against home education — it is about whether home education is safe and suitable for children in these particular circumstances. Local authorities are well placed to make that judgment.
Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to raise the threshold for the local authority to refuse consent to home-educate. This would mean that, if a parent was concerned that their child was being harmed by attending their current school, the local authority would be unable to refuse consent unless it provided evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy a court that withdrawal would result in greater harm. Let me be clear that parents’ concerns regarding bullying or their child’s mental health are serious, and these issues should be discussed with the school and local authority. I can quite understand why parents might want to remove their child from school in those circumstances. However, it is important to remember that the requirement for local authorities to consent to home education relates to a specific set of children who are subject to a child protection plan or inquiry or who are in a special school. This measure is intended to ensure that the local authority takes a considered, proportionate and informed decision for these groups. Eligible children should not be withdrawn from school for home education if it is not in their best interests or if education outside school is not going to be suitable. I want to be clear that local authorities must evidence their decision-making, but requiring it to the degree that the amendment suggests is totally impractical. Local authorities are well placed to make this best interests and suitability judgment. They possess the required information and have access to multi-agency expertise as part of their child protection and education duties, and parents’ views will be taken into account by local authorities as part of their decision-making process. Amendment 215, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to ensure that a refusal to grant consent to home-educate is taken against the background of the characteristics of the school that the child might attend. Just to be clear, the consent process is not…
- There is a deep principle here. It is only a small footprint on the first bit of beach, but the direction is clear: if the local authority's judgment is better for these children, why not for everybody? If it is better for children being taken out of school, why not for children who never went? There is no principled edge, and we must question it hard at its first instance. But for now I beg leave to withdraw.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Yes, I would very much like to pursue some of the details of this in meetings. The practicalities of what she described do not coincide with my experience of trying to get children moved from one school to another, particularly special schools. I do not see how it works. She described local authorities as fountainheads of expertise in this area. That is not my experience. It used to be, but not now. These are areas in which I really want to understand more about the Government’s reasoning and how they are approaching things. There is a deep principle here. It is only a small footprint on the first bit of beach, but the direction is clear. If it applies to children with SEN, why does it not apply to everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is better for those children, why is it not better for everybody? If the local authority’s judgment is best for children who are being taken out of school, why is it not best for children who never go into school? There is no edge here. Once this direction has been taken, it will carry on, and we must question it hard at its first instance and not shy away from that just because it is small. But for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
- Not every child outside school is invisible, unsafe or neglected — many are thriving, and the law must recognise that. Amendments 230, 254, 323–326 and 423 seek legitimate exemptions from the register: where credible evidence of suitable education already exists, demonstrated through an affidavit from an experienced home educator, enrolment for formal qualifications, or enrolment with an established online provider. Amendment 423 would allow home-educated children to sit national qualifications through their registered provider. The register will have to cope with more than 100,000 families — exemptions for those already demonstrably thriving would focus local authority resource on families who genuinely need help and avoid a huge volume of false positives.
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 230, 254, 323 to 326 and 423, all of which stand in my name. The creation of a register, though flawed, is fundamentally intended to identify children and families who have yet to demonstrate they are providing a suitable education through home education or otherwise. It stands to reason, therefore, that those who have already demonstrated this suitability or who have mitigating circumstances preventing them doing so at this time, such as being in crisis, seeking asylum, holding diplomatic status or navigating a legitimate and complex personal or family situation, should not be treated identically to those where safeguarding concerns may genuinely arise. There ought to be legitimate exemptions. These amendments start to aim to highlight such families, to give space to children who can show for themselves or through others that they are receiving a suitable education and that their parents are competent, committed and responsible, free from unnecessary state interference. These amendments deal with a wide range of contexts, but they all converge on a single point: not every child outside school is invisible, unsafe or neglected. Many are thriving, and the law must recognise that. Amendment 230 is central to this group. It proposes that where credible evidence of suitable education already exists, families should not be compelled to register with the local authority. This could be demonstrated, according to the amendment, in three ways: first, through an affidavit from an experienced home educator, perhaps one who has seen their own children succeed in life and academically; secondly, through enrolment and payment for formal qualifications, such as GCSEs, for which I think the going rate is currently several hundred pounds; or, thirdly, through enrolment with an established online provider. It should be noted that the fastest-growing sector within education in the country is online virtual schooling. Indeed, the Government have the…
- I support Amendment 423 in particular — anything that enables home-schoolers to demonstrate the success of their education is to be encouraged.
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on all these amendments, but particularly on his Amendment 423. At an earlier stage in these proceedings, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who is no longer in his place on the Benches, was very critical of home-schooling, alleging that there were poor results in home-schooling. Anything that home-schoolers can do in order to show the success of their home-schooling is to be encouraged. For that reason, I particularly support Amendment 423.
- These amendments all seek exemptions from the basic principle that there should be a register — and I cannot support that. The point of the register is to ensure local authorities know which children are not in school. It also allows home-educating parents to access support. It is reasonable and proportionate to record which children are not in school.
My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Wei seek to find exemptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school; therefore, I cannot support these. First, the point of the register is to ensure that the local authority knows which children are not in school, and these amendments would undermine that. Secondly, and importantly, it allows home-educating parents to access support where they need it. I hope we might spend a bit more time on that in future groups. Finally, these amendments make an assumption that, in these conditions, it may be preferable to educate the child at home, and this could well be right, but, in my opinion, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record which children are not in school.
- I spoke in favour of the register at Second Reading and in 2022, and I must correct myself: these amendments are anti-register, which I did not appreciate. I therefore cannot remain loyal to what I said in support of them — the register is important. But Amendment 423 still stands, and I continue to support it.
My Lords, I think I have to correct myself, because I have said, on behalf of home-schooling mothers, that we favour the registry. I said that two years ago and during the Schools Bill of 2022. I did not comprehend that these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, are anti-register. I therefore cannot remain loyal to what I have just said in support of them, because I think the register is important, but Amendment 423 still stands good and I continue to support it.
- Very briefly — a register should be there.
My Lords, very briefly, I find myself roughly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this one: a register should be there.
- While I personally oppose the register entirely, if there must be one I am proposing practical exemptions. The Government will have to get local authority officials to manage more than 100,000 home-educating families — many of those registrations will generate false positives that divert officers from children who genuinely need help. These exemptions are about making the system workable. And on asylum seekers specifically: the moment their children are placed on the register, the clock starts ticking — 15 days to report multiple contacts and details, in a language they may not speak. Has that really been thought through?
My Lords, I want to clarify that, while I personally oppose the register totally, if there must be a register, I am proposing practical amendments. I believe the numbers shared earlier today were that the Government are going to have to get local authority officials to deal with more than 100,000 home-educating families. If they all have to be registered and a portion of them lead to various determinations and investigations, this will create a massive workload for already stretched local authority officers, who we know are struggling to catch the children we want to protect. My point in tabling these amendments is to create exemptions.
As a former lead member for children's services in one of the country's largest metropolitan authorities, I cannot recognise many of the comments made tonight about local authority officers. Their primary and sole objective is to ensure every child in this country is safe from harm — and that dedication deserves recognition. Parents have no reason to fear the register: it is vital to helping local authorities discharge their existing responsibilities. Without it, too many children fall through the gaps. The proposed exemptions would prevent local authorities from knowing which children are not in school, and no sworn affidavit or enrolment record gives a local authority the assurance it needs that education is suitable for an individual child.My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for the clarification that he has just made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for a very clear explanation of why she is not supporting these amendments. As a former lead member for children’s services for the second-largest metropolitan authority in the country, I find it very difficult to recognise some of the comments that have been made tonight, and I emphasise the dedication and hard work of so many people whose primary, indeed sole objective is to make sure that all children in this country are safe from harm. It is so important to reference that as we go through. I am not sure how many more times Ministers need to stress that there is total recognition of how many parents are out there working extremely hard to provide a suitable education when educating their children otherwise than at school. We have heard examples of the successes of so many of them, and we recognise that many of those children are thriving. I emphasise that parents have no reason to fear the prospect of having to include key information on local authority children not in school registers. This information is vital to help local authorities discharge existing responsibilities and ensure that the education children receive is suitable and safe. As we have heard, without the registers, too many children and young people are at risk of falling through the gaps. I will respond briefly to the amendments in this group, which are all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. They suggests exemptions for why a child’s information should not be included on a local authority’s children not in school register. Amendment 254 seeks to ensure that, if a child does not fit the eligibility criteria, their parents would not be required to provide any information. This is unnecessary. If a child is not eligible to be registered, their parents would not be under the duty to provide information. Amendments 230, 323, 324 and 326 seek to limit which children must be…
- I am disappointed, because these amendments are designed to help already-stretched local authority officers focus on families that genuinely need attention — not to exclude anyone from protection. The register, without exemptions, will generate enormous volumes of work and risk safeguarding failures simply because officers cannot get around to the families and children who really need help. I will reflect and may return at a later stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.
I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Barran for their comments. Frankly, I am disappointed. I feel that many of the measures that I have proposed are designed to help our wonderful officials, who work in local authorities and are struggling under a huge workload, to focus their efforts with the register, which will create a lot of, let us say, false positives as well as genuine areas where intervention might be needed, and a huge amount of work. That is the focus of these amendments. The point I wanted to raise about asylum seekers was that asylum seekers are obviously very vulnerable, but under the Bill, the moment when the details of the asylum seeker’s children are in the register, the clock starts ticking. They have two weeks to do it, they have to report X number of people’s email addresses and names, they might not even speak or write English, and yet the clock will start ticking. Of course, local authorities and we as a society need to support asylum seekers, but are we willing to put them through such an onerous process if they choose, for whatever reason, to home-educate? I am not sure that this has been really thought through. It is not any part of my design to exclude asylum seekers from the support that local authorities can provide; it is just trying to be practical. While I recognise and really applaud the officials working on the front line—already under huge pressure and struggling to work out, within all the noise of all the many databases they have access to, where they should intervene—my concern is that without exemptions such as these, this is going to make their life much more difficult and may indeed lead to safeguarding scandals and problems because they have not been able to get around to the families and children who really do need help. I am grateful for what has been said. I will reflect on it and may return to it at a later stage but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.