Committee stage in the Commons
The eighth sitting debated school uniform caps, consent requirements for withdrawing children from special schools to home educate, a new register of children not in school, and school attendance orders.
THLet me bring us back to reality. Growing up as a free-school-meals kid on a council estate, caring for two disabled parents, I know that uniform costs are real and significant — parents in my constituency cite them as a reason they cannot properly care for their children. When I told my mum last night that Parliament was about to cap the number of uniform items in statute, that said to her: we have your back, we are not blaming you, we are not shaming you. An Act of Parliament that says "we are on your side" is how we bridge the gap between politics and people's lives.Sounds good, but I want to bring us back, if I may, to reality. We need to do that, because first, all of us in this room would acknowledge that the status quo is not working. I have been a school governor, I have sponsored a mental health project for children and young people, and I know just how hard teachers and support staff work. We all know how fantastic our schools are, but still the status quo is that parents are struggling, and children are suffering. I was dwelling on what to say particularly because some of this is very personal to me; I grew up as a free school meals kid on a council estate caring for two disabled parents. It is only in recent times that I have started to talk openly about growing up in poverty— I would previously call it “financial hardship”, but that feels too clinical a term. I call it poverty, because if I am now an MP, it is my duty to speak truth and to try to show some inspiration to families locally who may be struggling. That does present its challenges, particularly in the conversations that I have with my mum, because she does not feel comfortable all the time with me talking about growing up in poverty. She feels that somehow it is her son’s way of saying that she did not do well enough, that she failed, and that she let him down in her duties. That shame persists. I spoke with her last night about my role in this Committee, and what we were discussing and considering today. I told her what I would say if the opportunity arose, and we again navigated that difficult conversation, as I am sure I will do many times in the future. I had to bring it back to the point that she did everything she could; she loved and cared for her sons and tried her best, but ultimately the society that we live in held her back. Despite her best efforts, politics was not there to support her. If somebody at the age of 41, as I am, is having this conversation with their mum so many years later, imagine the conversations that might happen in 30 or 40…
On Amendment 87: replacing our item cap with a cost cap risks reducing parental choice, creates ambiguity about second-hand sales, and would be complex to administer given regional price differences. On Amendments 29 and 30: allowing schools to require pupils to *wear* more than three branded items provided they don't *buy* them would create confusion and place an undue burden on schools to supply core uniform. On Amendment 31: schools already have powers to require replacement of lost or damaged uniform — this new section is unnecessary and would inadvertently apply to independent schools. On Amendments 32 and 91: exempting PE kit would effectively nullify the entire measure — almost three in ten parents of secondary children already report five or more branded PE kit items being required, and that is unacceptable. Government amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10 are technical corrections to exclude hospital schools from the branded-item limits and the guidance duty.It really is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, who made an incredibly powerful case for why we have brought forward these measures, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, who also shared her experience, as a mother, of battling some of these issues. I have to say that, on the way back to this Committee, after the brief break that we just had, I went past some members of staff who work in the House, and they said, “Oh, you look in a hurry.” I said, “Yes, we are about to talk about the measures that we are bringing forward on uniforms,” and, instantly, they said, “Oh my goodness, it’s a nightmare! They cost a fortune,” and expressed how challenging they find it. Indeed, when I was recently asked to find a picture of myself in my old school uniform—and I had to search hard because, while I know I look really young, it was a while ago that I was at school—I wanted a picture that would represent the school that I went to, but strangely, when I found the pictures, I realised that my school uniform had no branding. It was a plain grey jumper, a plain grey skirt and a blue generic shirt. I realised that those were the times that we lived in; we had less, and that was the reality, I think, for the vast majority of schools. I remember my school being very smart and very strict, but that was the uniform that we had. I think we did have a blazer with a badge on as well, and we had to wear that to and from school, but that was how the school dealt with the public outward projection of the school identity. I grew up as one of eight siblings, and I do not know how my parents would have managed for the eight of us growing up, given the uniforms that some families have to buy today. That is why I am delighted to speak today to clause 23, and to address the amendments that have been put forward in this group, because this Government really are committed to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families. That is why the Govern…
The notes say the limit "includes items required for PE and sport… even if an activity is optional, if a pupil requires a branded item of uniform to participate in that activity, then the item will count towards the limit." So the measure *will* bite on school sports teams — that is precisely why we need Amendment 91.This was the main point that we wanted to make, and it is good to have confirmation from the Minister that our interpretation of the notes is correct. The notes say it “includes items required for PE and sport… even if an activity is optional, if a pupil requires a branded item of uniform to participate in that activity, then the item will count towards the limit.” The Minister has just said that this will absolutely bite on school sports teams—
- That is precisely what the Minister just said — that accepting Amendment 91 would allow unlimited branded items for school sports teams. It is clear the measure bites in exactly the way we argue it does.
That is precisely what the Minister just said. She said that by having the amendment we would be allowed to have unlimited numbers of items for school sports teams. So it is clear that the measure bites in exactly the way that we say it does, which is why we need amendment 91.
- The two things do not follow. The limit on branded items applies to PE kits, yes — but schools still have freedom to choose *how* to use their branded allocation. Crucially, the Bill does not restrict schools from *loaning* competition kit. The whole intention of the measure is that PE and sports kit costs should never be a barrier to participation — and Amendment 91 would achieve the opposite.
No, the two things do not follow. I said that the limit on the number of branded items applies to PE kits. However, schools still have the freedom to choose how to use that branded number allocation, including in relation to PE and sports. It does not restrict the ability of schools to loan out specific competition kit where appropriate. The intention of the measure, which amendment 91 would completely undermine, is that the cost of PE and sports kits should never be a barrier to participation in PE and sports. That is what the measure is intended to achieve—while his measure would achieve the opposite.
- So under Clause 23 as passed, school sports teams will not be able to *require* pupils to own kit — in future, schools will only be able to loan items for sports teams. That is quite a significant change.
Just to confirm what the Minister is saying, under the clause if passed, school sports teams will not be able to require pupils to own the items. In the future, schools will only be able to loan items for school sports teams to their pupils, so there will be quite a big difference.
- To be clear: parents cannot be mandated to purchase more than three branded items — or four including a tie — and that includes PE and sports kits. Many schools already loan out sports kits to ensure full participation. No child should ever be put off sport because of the cost of kit, and schools that continue to require large numbers of branded items are right to be forced to reduce them.
To be clear, the legislation will require that parents cannot be mandated to purchase more than three branded items, or four including a tie. That includes PE and sports kits. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world, but many schools already loan out sports kits to ensure the full participation of any child, and do not require the parent to buy the kit to participate in that sport. Many secondary schools have opportunities for a whole range of sports—quite rightly—and they all potentially require different kit, as well as matching kit in order to present a uniform team image. Many schools will already loan out the kit where they have to compete externally. Schools can loan it out or they can provide it for free. Indeed, the entire purpose of the provision is to ensure that no child is prevented or put off from taking part in sport because they are worried about the cost of the sports kit. That should never be a barrier to a child’s participation in PE and sport. It is therefore right that schools that continue to require large numbers of branded items are forced to reduce them. That is why the measure is needed.
Isn't this actually very simple? Uniform has become prohibitively expensive, many schools have more branded items than necessary, and families and schools welcome these practical measures. If this Bill is about removing barriers to opportunity, supporting Clause 23 as it stands is how we achieve that.Does the Minister agree that this issue is actually very simple and, while we appreciate the level of detail and scrutiny that opposition parties are rightly giving to it, we risk making a mountain out of a molehill? The fact is that uniform has become prohibitively expensive and there are more items than necessary in many schools. Many families and schools welcome these practical measures to bring costs down and, if this Bill is about removing barriers to opportunity, supporting the clause as it stands is the way of achieving that.
- On Amendments 59 and 60 to reduce the limit from three to two branded items: a limit of three provides the best balance — reducing costs while letting schools set policies that work for them, especially secondary schools which will already need to make choices within their three- or four-item allocation. On Amendment 61 to remove the secondary school tie exception: most secondary schools already require branded ties, which are low-cost and long-lasting, so allowing one additional branded tie is a proportionate recognition of that reality.
My hon. Friend puts it in a nutshell. Speaking of additional complexity, I turn now to amendments 59 and 60—I have not picked on those particularly; they just happened to coincide with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Tabled by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), the amendments seek to reduce the number of branded items primary and secondary schools can require from three to two. I know that the hon. Member has been a long-time campaigner on the issue of making school uniform more affordable for families. That is why I am sure he will share our view that, while school uniform plays a valuable role in creating a sense of common identity among pupils and reducing visible inequalities, too many schools still require an unacceptably high number of branded items. The Government believe that a limit of three branded items provides the best balance, reducing costs for parents while ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring. Restricting schools to only two branded items will make it harder for schools to find that balance and set a uniform policy that works best for their circumstances. That is especially true for secondary schools, which will already have to make choices about how best to use their limit of three or four branded items, depending on their local circumstances. We believe that the limit of three provides clarity to parents, gives them more choice in where they purchase uniform and allows them greater flexibility to make the spending decisions that suit their circumstances, all while giving schools the flexibility they need to set their uniform policies. I turn now to amendment 61, also tabled by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which seeks to remove the ability of secondary and middle schools to have four compulsory branded items when one of those branded items is a tie. This Government are genuinely ambitious about reducing costs for p…
- On the house-ties point: if a school is already at its three-item limit and a child is offered a branded house tie mid-year, wouldn't that take them over the limit? How is that supposed to work?
The Minister is very kind to give way. She has raised the issue of house ties; if a school is already at its limit of branded items for the year, and halfway through the year a child is offered a branded house tie, that would be an additional item, would it not? That would take them over the limit, so how is that supposed to work?
- A school would have to operate within the limits of these requirements, so it would simply choose not to introduce a new tie mid-year. It really is not that complex.
A school would have to operate within the limits of these requirements, so it would probably choose not to introduce these things mid-year. It is really not that complex.
If house ties came in mid-year, the house tie would simply replace the original tie — so the number would stay the same.Does the Minister agree that if house ties came in mid-year, the requirement would be for the house tie, which would replace the original tie? Therefore, the number would still be the same.
Ten thousand adults in my city will get a pay rise from the minimum wage increase — but there is still a cost-of-living crisis. Will the limit of three branded items, or four for secondary pupils with a tie, actually make a real difference to families there?I want to echo that sentiment and to ask a question. In my city, when we get the minimum wage rise, 10,000 adults will get a pay rise. There is a cost of living crisis for them. Will this limit of three items, or four items if the child is in secondary school and a tie is included, make a difference to the people in my city?
- We are absolutely confident this will make a difference to families up and down the country, including in Portsmouth North. Many schools already operate within these limits, but it is not universal — this measure ensures those benefits apply to all children in all schools across England. On New Clause 35 to remove VAT on school uniform for under-16s: children's clothing under 14 already carries a zero VAT rate, costing the Exchequer £2 billion a year. The UK is one of only two OECD countries with this relief. Going further would come at a cost, and tax changes are properly made at fiscal events.
We are absolutely confident that this limit will make a difference to many families up and down the country, including in Portsmouth North. Some schools already operate within these limits; I know that many schools have gone to great lengths to operate within the spirit of the guidance already in place, to try to minimise uniform costs for families. However, that is not universal, and we think that the clarity this measure will bring will ensure that those benefits are not just for some children in some schools, but for all children in all schools right across England. We also believe that the measure balances reducing costs for parents with ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience all the benefits that a uniform that includes a number of branded items can bring. This is not about the state interfering in the day-to-day running of schools. Schools can still choose which items to brand as long as they adhere to the legislative limit. They will also still be able to include the optional tie, if they wish. School uniforms should be designed to make pupils look and feel smarter, not to make families poorer. Schools will still be able to set and enforce appropriate uniform policies within these limits. I know that many schools and school leaders are already rising to this challenge, and I am sure that many more will welcome the clarity that this measure brings, ensuring that the cost of uniform is never a barrier to pupils accessing school life. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill. Finally, I move to new clause 35, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham, which aims to remove VAT on school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16. As I have already stated, the Government are committed to cutting the cost of school uniform for families. That is why the Government have chosen to support families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. Under current VAT rules, all child…
- We will press only Amendment 91 to a vote. We have heard from the Association of School and College Leaders, Government backbenchers, the Liberal Democrats and ourselves about the danger these measures will backfire — that what replaces cheap standard PE kit is more expensive branded sportswear. That is why we wanted PE kit excluded.
I intend to press only amendment 91 to a vote. We have had an interesting and thoughtful debate this afternoon. I note again that we have heard from the Association of School and College Leaders, Government Back Benchers, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Conservatives about the danger that these measures will backfire and that, in the real world, what will replace cheap, standard PE kit is more expensive, branded sportswear. That is why we wanted to exclude PE kit. I will not press the new clause to a vote—we do not have time to press every single thing to a vote—but I would like to press amendment 91.
We all genuinely want to bring down the cost of school uniforms, so why the discord? The Minister's objection to Amendment 87 is a red herring — nothing stops parents going to the high street for shirts, skirts and trousers. We are simply saying there should be a cost cap. As colleagues noted, a school can still charge £100 for a blazer under this legislation — a cap would guarantee cost savings in a way an item cap does not. I am pressing the amendment to a vote.I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East for the powerful way in which he shared his personal story. I thank him for that genuinely. I was quite saddened before lunch, because there was quite a lot of discord in the room on an issue where there is actually quite a lot of unanimity. We all genuinely want to bring down the cost of school uniforms. I am still slightly perplexed by the Minister’s response to amendment 87; her point that it would reduce choice is a red herring. There is nothing to stop parents going to high street shops for shirts, trousers, skirts and all that. We are just saying that there should be a cost cap. In the arguments I heard from the Back Benches, the hon. Member for Derby North even made the point that we should consider a cost cap and, in an intervention on the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said that at the moment, schools can charge £100 for a blazer—well, under this legislation, they still could. That is precisely why a cost cap makes much more sense than an item cap. I take on board the Minister’s point about regional variation; that is something that could be addressed, but regional variation exists now. A blazer that costs £100 in London might cost £75 in the north-east, and that will still be the case. A cap would guarantee cost savings to parents and give flexibility to schools, whereas the legislation as it stands will not guarantee cost savings on branded items. It is a no-brainer, and I therefore want to press the amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Amendment 33 would remove the requirement for children in special schools to obtain local authority consent before being home educated. Amendment 35 takes the opposite direction — widening the scope of required consent to include children under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (children in need), not just those subject to section 47 investigations or child protection plans. The Children's Commissioner wrote in December that the Bill must go further: Sara Sharif was not under any intervention when she died, yet she would not have been protected by the clause as drafted. The bar of a section 47 investigation is simply too high to protect some very vulnerable children. On the narrowing: I was surprised that subsection (3) of Clause 24 sweeps in all children in special schools. The right to home educate is a fundamental one, and there are many circumstances — severe physical or mental health needs — where it is entirely right for a child with SEND. The last thing blameless parents of very sick children need is bureaucracy. There is also a potential conflict of interest: some local authorities discourage home education because it would increase their costs, even when it would benefit the child. I am completely open to persuasion — but why are all parents of children in special schools being treated the same as families subject to live social services investigations?
Amendment 33 would delete the requirement for children in special schools to secure local authority consent to be home educated. In contrast, amendment 35 would widen the scope of required consent from just those children subject to section 47 investigations to those under a slightly lower level of concern with social services, which are section 17 children in need. I will turn to the widening amendment first. We support the Government’s intention with this clause to give local authorities the power to withhold consent to home educate a child where it is subject to a section 47 investigation or a child protection plan, or where it is a section 17 child in need. However, we worry that the clause as drafted might not fully achieve the Government’s aims and create a bit of a conflict of interest for a local authority, so our amendment would broaden the criteria to include children in need under section 17. The Government spoke rightly of the tragic case of Sara Sharif, but my understanding is that unfortunately she would not have been protected by the Bill as drafted, as she was not the subject of a section 47 child protection plan. As the Children’s Commissioner wrote in December: “Despite there having been evidence of violence at home since birth, Sara was not under any intervention from social care when she died. The Bill must therefore go further in protecting children like her, making it impossible for a child ever known to social care for abuse or neglect to be home schooled.” That request goes a bit further than our amendment, but it is a really powerful argument. What does the Minister make of the argument that the clause should require consent for home education if a child has ever been a subject of concern? Although our amendment does not go as far as the Children’s Commissioner’s idea, I hope that it is in that spirit, in so far as it widens the scope of the clause to include more children where social workers have live concerns. I hope the Government might…
Amendment 46 removes the special-school consent requirement in subsection (3) — for much the same reasons as Amendment 33. We are extremely concerned that parents wanting to withdraw a child with SEND from a special school face this extra bureaucracy, especially when the local authority does not always have the best information on the child — they will often turn to the school itself, not the parents. Condition A implies near-equivalence between children with SEND and children with safeguarding concerns, which is a troubling parallel to write into legislation. I also want to ask: in what circumstances can the local authority actually refuse? And how does the Minister plan to stop this becoming a long drawn-out process, trapping children in schools their parents believe are not meeting their needs?Amendment 46 is very similar to amendment 33, in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, in that it removes subsection (3) and condition A, and for much the same reasons. We are extremely concerned that a parent wanting to remove their child with special educational needs and disabilities from a special school will be subject to this extra bureaucracy. We know that we have a SEND crisis. There are so many parents, even when their child is in a special school, who feel that the school is not meeting their child’s educational needs and that their child is better served through a home education. I would point out that the local authority does not always have the best information on children in special schools. They will be turning to the schools themselves for a view, maybe more so than to the parents. There may be a bit of iniquity there. I would like to question the Minister on the circumstances in which the local authority can refuse permission. Condition A implies almost an equivalence between children with special educational needs and children where there are safeguarding concerns, which seems quite a parallel to draw in legislation. The other question I have is about the timescale for the decision making. We know that local authorities can get bogged down in their processes. How does the Minister plan to ensure that authorities are not taking a long time to grant permission to parents to take their children out of special needs schools when they feel that school is not meeting their child’s needs?
Home education is a long-standing fundamental right — one most parents never use, but which some exercise for entirely legitimate reasons: SEND, severe bullying, mental health. The Bill is right to introduce a register. But the balance is wrong on the detail required of parents. I am worried about Condition A in subsection (3) of Clause 24: grouping children in special schools with families under active safeguarding investigations seems peculiar. I also want to raise the terminology — the Bill refers in multiple places to education 'otherwise than at school' (EOTAS), which has a specific meaning distinct from elective home education. EOTAS is legally mandated and LA-funded; elective home education is a voluntary parental choice. I am not sure the drafting keeps those two things properly separate. Finally, subsection (10)(b) provides that a parent may refer a dispute 'to the Secretary of State' — that is quite a thing for a regular parent to take on. What exactly is that mechanism and how will it be accessed?It is a very long-standing right in England for a parent to choose to send their child to school or to educate at home. It is a right that the vast majority of parents never take up, but which nevertheless could be considered a fundamental parent’s right. The condition is always that the child must be receiving a suitable education. That phrase, “a suitable education”, has never been defined in law, and on occasion that creates some tensions. School should be right for the vast majority of children. A school system is designed to apply to the vast majority of children. The Bill is right to introduce a register of children not in school. That was also our policy when in government, but I think the balance is wrong between the detail of information required of parents and the support on offer. Although the number of children in elective home education has been growing, the data collection is relatively new and has been mandatory only since autumn 2024, so some of that growth—as the DFE statisticians themselves say—will be because of that effect. It had been rising even before covid, and then there was a distinct covid effect, which we can see in the numbers. There are multiple reasons why children might be out of school and being educated at home—because of their special needs, perhaps because they have been bullied badly at school, or for various mental health reasons. Some parents make the most enormous sacrifices in their lives to provide a suitable education for their child. I was reminded by someone who came to my surgery the other day that they are not all in terrible circumstances. This mother said to me, “There’s nothing wrong with our life at all. We do this because we think it’s the right thing for our family.” It is her right, too. As a society, we have a moral imperative to know that children are safe. That is where exceptions to rights kick in. There is a really important distinction to be made here. Sometimes, people talk about a growth in elective home…
The requirement for special-school parents to obtain consent before home educating is necessary. It provides a check that home education is in the child's best interests and that educational suitability issues arising from leaving a special school are considered. A similar requirement has existed in secondary legislation for many years — it is appropriate to put it in primary legislation for consistency. These children are not necessarily at greater risk, but they have a higher level of need when it comes to ensuring a suitable education, so losing special school support is a major upheaval that warrants a check before the child comes off roll.I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his thoughtful contribution, speaking from the heart on why the measures in this landmark Bill are so important. Amendments 33 and 46 seek to amend the clause to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home educate should the child attend a special school arranged by the local authority. It is necessary to have that requirement. It provides a check to ensure that home education is in the best interests of the child, and that there are no education suitability issues resulting from no longer attending a special school. A similar requirement has existed in secondary legislation for many years. I consider it appropriate for such a requirement to be in primary legislation to ensure consistency as part of the new package of consent requirements. I do not consider that children in those circumstances are necessarily at greater risk, but they will have a higher level of need when it comes to ensuring a suitable education. Therefore, no longer attending a special school may impact educational provision and is vital to ensure that it is in the best interests of the child to be home educated, and that suitable arrangements have been made for their education before the child comes off roll. Therefore, for the reasons I have out- lined, I ask the hon. Members kindly to withdraw their amendments.
- Does the Minister recognise — as Dr Homden said in oral evidence — that given the fundamental lack of provision in the state sector for SEND, particularly in special schools, the provision prescribed in an EHCP is sometimes simply not available? Stopping parents from withdrawing their child to home educate in those circumstances could be actively harmful to the child.
Does the Minister recognise—as Dr Homden said in her oral evidence, when I questioned her on this matter—that given such a fundamental lack of provision in the state sector, which I think is recognised in all parts of the House, in particular for special school provision, for some children, whatever provision is prescribed in the EHCP is just not available? Therefore, it sometimes is in the best interest of the child to withdraw them to home educate. The fact that parents may be penalised or stopped from doing that could be much more detrimental to a child.
- Those are real challenges that parents face, and I will say more on SEND reform shortly — the Minister for School Standards will also be setting out our wider plans later this year.
I thank the hon. Member for raising those issues. She is a real champion, certainly on SEND issues and the challenges that parents face. I will say a bit more about the points that she made shortly. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is also a real champion of these issues and will set out our reform plans later this year.
- On Amendment 35: bringing section 17 children in need into scope would likely deter families from seeking help in the first place — the opposite of what we want. Many disabled children are automatically eligible under section 17 regardless of safeguarding concerns, so including this group would be disproportionate. We are investing £500 million in family help and multi-agency child protection reforms from April 2025.
I will just make some progress. Amendment 35 seeks to expand the eligibility of the home education consent process to include those children and families receiving support and services under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The Government are investing £500 million to support the national roll-out of family help and multi-agency child protection reforms from April 2025, and our ambition is that families can access the right support from the right person as soon as they need it. The family hub model combines targeted early help and section 17 support into a seamless, non-stigmatising approach focused on the whole family through a single plan and consistent worker, even as a family’s needs change. Bringing children in need into scope of the home education consent process is likely to prevent families from seeking support when they need it, the opposite of what we want. Parents and families might well be reluctant to accept support from the local authority under section 17 if it meant that their ability to home educate was called into question and, potentially, permission to home educate was refused. Furthermore, not all children will receive support and services, because of safeguarding concerns or because they have particular educational needs. For example, all disabled children, including those with disabilities that would not necessarily require special educational needs provision, are automatically eligible. Given that, we believe that including this group of children in the consent measure would be disproportionate.
- Isn't there a tension here? The Minister says we should not bring section 17 children in scope partly because many are disabled — yet he rejected Amendment 33 on the basis that it is right to require consent for all children in special schools, many of whom are also disabled. Those two arguments seem to pull in opposite directions. And can he say roughly how long the process will take for special-school parents, and what he will do to stop it becoming so prolonged that parents cannot get their child home when that is clearly the right outcome?
I wonder whether there is some tension between the Minister saying that one reason we should not include section 17 children is that some of them are disabled, and then rejecting amendment 33 because it is right that all pupils in special schools should have to go through this consent mechanism because a lot of them will be disabled. Those two arguments seem to be very much in tension there. To press him a little bit on this point about not excluding those in special schools, can the Minister say roughly how long a timeline we are talking about? What sort of information will special school parents have to provide in order to win the right, as it were, to home educate? What is he going to do to stop this from being a long process in which parents of special school pupils do not have their children where they want them, with them at home, even when ultimately that is going to be the decision?
- We do not consider children in special schools to be at greater risk of harm — but losing their support entitlement is a major upheaval, and a check before they come off roll is prudent. This builds on a long-standing policy requirement that has existed in secondary legislation for years. On Sara Sharif: we cannot say for sure what might have made a difference, and we will learn lessons from the forthcoming local child safeguarding practice review. The Children's Commissioner has previously advocated for extending the consent mechanism more widely, but her written evidence to this Committee did not reflect that. We are committed to engaging with local authorities, home educators and stakeholders before and after Royal Assent on statutory guidance. Regarding SEND families and the disproportionate impact concern: we have undertaken a thorough equality impact assessment, and the information gathered will allow local authorities to provide more tailored support.
I thank the shadow Minister for his response. He makes a number of points with regard to section 17 support and services for children and families. I want to reassure him that we have already strengthened and clarified multi-agency guidance around early help and section 17 through the working together legislation and through the families first for children pathfinder. We are testing new ways to reform every part of the children’s social care system. The Government have already nearly doubled direct investment in preventive services for children and families, including the roll out of the family help and multi-agency child protection reforms from April this year. Taken together, we believe these reforms will drive fundamental shifts in the way we help, support and protect children and families in every part of the system. There are a number of questions and contributions I will now specifically respond to in the debate on this group. On the tragic case of Sara Sharif, of course we cannot say for sure what might have made a difference, but we will learn lessons from the future conclusion of the local child safeguarding practice review. The Government are taking action to reform every part of the children’s social care system through the Bill and investing over £500 million in national roll-out of the family hub and multi-agency child protection reforms from April. The shadow Minister raised a number of points made by the Children’s Commissioner; I can confirm that I regularly meet and engage with the Children’s Commissioner on a range of issues. I note with interest that she has previously advocated for extending the consent mechanism more widely, but that that was not reflected in her written evidence to the Bill Committee. With regard to the consent for home education, if someone has ever been subject to a safeguarding concern, we believe that this is a proportionate response that focuses on the most vulnerable.[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 5WC.]…
- Amendment 34 is straightforward: where a local authority refuses consent for a special-school child to be home educated, it must give the parents a written statement of reasons that includes an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child. We hope that would happen anyway — we are simply putting good practice into statute.
This is a very straightforward amendment. It adds that where a local authority refuses consent, it must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of the reasons for the decision, including an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child. Of course, we hope that would happen anyway, but we are just making good practice part of the legislation.
- Local authorities already have an existing public law duty to give reasons when granting or refusing consent. We will make that clear in statutory guidance so relevant professionals know what is required — there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill. We are committed to engaging with local authorities, home educators and stakeholders to inform guidance and implementation after Royal Assent.
The amendment, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, seeks to establish that, when local authorities refuse a parent’s request for consent for a child who attends a special school under local authority arrangements to be home educated, they must provide a statement of reasons for that refusal to the parent. The statement must include an assessment of the potential costs and benefits to the child. As part of their existing public law duties, local authorities need to provide reasons as to why they have decided to grant or refuse consent for home education when notifying the parent of their decision. We will make that clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them. We are also committed to engaging with local authorities, home educators and other stakeholders following Royal Assent to inform guidance and implementation. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment. Turning to clause 24 stand part, every child has the right to a suitable education in a safe environment, which will meet their needs, nurture and stimulate them, and open doors to future opportunities. For most children, that will be achieved by regular attendance in a school setting, but I recognise that for a small number of children and families, home education is in the best interests of the child. Sadly, there is evidence from local authorities and the Department’s own data collection that some children who have been withdrawn from school to be home educated are not receiving a suitable education. The child safeguarding practice review panel has found that some children have suffered significant harm, and even death, due to abuse or neglect while not in education. We saw this in the recent appalling case of Sara Sharif, whose father and stepmother withdrew her from school, ostensibly to be to home…
- There is cross-party support for the principle of a register of children not in school. But in our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, we must not stigmatise or treat as suspicious parents who make a positive choice to home educate. Amendments 62 and 63 address the very specific and onerous information requirements in Clause 25. Amendment 62 removes the requirement for parents to specify how much time *each parent separately* spends educating the child — something that would vary week to week and intrude into home life, especially where parents live apart. Amendment 63 adds a six-hour weekly threshold so that minor provision, like a 30-minute piano lesson, does not have to be registered — only substantive out-of-home education.
The principle of having a register for children not in school has long-held cross-party support. However, as I outlined in the debate on clause 24, there are very different groups of children who may be educated at home. In our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise or treat as suspicious parents who make a positive choice to home educate their children. In clause 25, subsections (c) to (e) of proposed new section 436C of the Education Act 1996 require a lot of very specific details from parents, such as the amount of time they spend providing education for their child. In the Bill that we brought forward when in Government, we used a rather broader approach, citing such details as the means by which the child is being educated. The drafting of the proposed the new section seeks to make all home schoolers provide a pretty extraordinary level of detail, on pain of breaking the law. We understand the intent, but our amendments seek to make that a bit more proportionate and a bit less intensely onerous for legitimate home-schooling parents. Amendment 62 would take out the requirement on parents to specify how much time a child spends being educated by each parent—something that would likely vary from week to week in many cases, and would also be slightly invasive into people’s home lives if the parents are not living at the same place. Amendment 63 would add a de minimis floor of six hours a week, so not every single tiny appointment or 30-minute piano lesson has to be recorded, but only the substantive bits of education outside the home, which is more to the original intent.
- We strongly support Clause 25 and the register — it is long overdue and supported by all parties. But the level of detail required on the face of the Bill shocked me when I read it over Christmas. Even the director of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, Andy Smith, said at oral evidence that there "may be some reflection on whether there needs to be such a level of detail captured." I urge Ministers to think again about proportionality. Amendment 86 is a simple safeguarding provision: where providing one parent's address to the other would put the child or that parent at risk — for example, in a domestic abuse case — that requirement should not apply. I also ask: have Ministers considered the disproportionate impact on SEND families, who often home educate because the state sector cannot meet their child's needs and whose education is necessarily fluid and hard to reduce to recorded hours? And proposed new section 436C(2)(a) would collect data on protected characteristics — can the Minister assure faith communities that this data will not be used to judge the adequacy of their education?
I rise to speak in support of clause 25 and to amendment 86 in my name. As I said on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats strongly support the introduction of a register of children not in school; it is an overdue measure which is supported by all parties, and I am very glad to see this Government introducing it. I know from my own inbox, as well as from the many pieces of written evidence the Committee has received, that many parents of home-educated children feel that the register is an attack on them, so I want to reiterate—it is certainly my own party’s position—that we fundamentally support parents’ right to choose to home educate. This is about keeping children safe. We have had so many reports, not least from the Children’s Commissioner about children just disappearing from the system, and about how important this register is. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other children’s organisations also support it. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston around how much information is being asked of families to provide for this register, as stated on the face of the Bill. As I sat during Christmas recess reading it, I was quite shocked; I questioned why this information was needed and what it was going to be used for. I thought it was very instructive that I thought, “Look, Munira, you’re not the expert here,” and asked the experts, but when I asked Andy Smith from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services at the oral evidence session last week if he thought this level of detail was needed, his words were “there may be some reflection on whether there needs to be such a level of detail captured.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 15.]
- Local authorities risk drowning in a sea of information — rather than having the simple, actionable data needed to make decisions, they will be wading through so much detail that everything slows down.
I worry that local authorities are going to drown in a sea of information; rather than having simple information they can use to make a decision; they will have so much that they will be wading through it and everything will be slowed down.
- Absolutely — I agree completely. I spoke to the director of children's services in my own borough earlier this week, read him the provisions, and he was shocked too, wondering how they would be implemented. The Opposition's amendments on this are sensible and proportionate. On Amendment 86: it is a simple, necessary safeguarding provision to protect parents and children from domestic abuse. I also ask Ministers: will the data on protected characteristics be used to judge the success of education in faith settings? And proposed new section 436C(5) allows information to be published — I hope very little is in fact published.
Absolutely—I agree completely. I was talking to the director of children’s services in my own borough earlier this week about it, and read the provisions to him. I think he was shocked as well, and wondered how they would be implemented. I say this very much in the spirit of making the measure workable, but I urge Ministers to think again about the amount of information being collected. We think that a number of the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are sensible and proportionate, and would mean that the measure is less intrusive. Amendment 86, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, is a simple safeguarding provision. Where both parents are required to give their details, if there is a safeguarding reason that it would be bad for one parent’s address to be revealed to the other, for example because it would make the child or the other parent unsafe in a case of domestic abuse, the amendment would mean that that requirement did not apply. It would make sure that everybody is kept safe. I have a couple of other comments on the level of detail required. Have Ministers thought about whether the measure will have a disproportionate impact on the families of SEND children? We have received written evidence, and I have received emails, from those who have made the difficult decision to home educate because of SEND needs that are not being met in the state sector. They are often home educating because their children cannot cope with regular school schedules. At home, they can educate and work with the ebb and flow; how they educate will be much more fluid. Parents are asking, “How on earth am I to meet these requirements? Will I be breaking the law if I cannot exactly quantify how many hours I have spent each week doing a certain task, given the way I need to educate my child in order that they can thrive?” For instance, if a child is being taught about nutrition and food technology while cooking dinner…
- The requirement to specify how many hours parent 1 versus parent 2 spends teaching is troubling, and the Opposition's amendments would sensibly delete it. Did Ministers also consider an entirely different approach — placing the onus on out-of-school *providers* to register and demonstrate their bona fides, rather than putting all the burden on parents? And on support: rather than local authorities offering "whatever they consider fit", could the wording be strengthened to require regard to guidance from the Department for Education, so that home-educating families get a more consistent baseline?
I join colleagues in finding troubling the level of detail to be required of home-educating parents. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston would make sensible adjustments to that, for example by deleting the requirement to show the split between how many hours are done by parent 1 and how many by parent 2. The Government could also amend the frequency of reporting to something more reasonable—or, handily, there is a piece of text ready and waiting, because a private Member’s Bill last year from my then hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley contained the text for a proposed new section 436C. Proposed new section 436E concerns providers. Did Ministers consider approaching this measure in a completely different way? They could have said that the onus should be on the provider to say who they are and to demonstrate their bona fides, with Disclosure and Barring Service checks and so on, as part of a light-touch registration regime. I am not necessarily advocating such a scheme, but what other models were thought about? On proposed new section 436G, Ministers will know that a gripe of home-educating parents is that a lot is asked of them but little is offered back. Might it be sensible to change the wording? Instead of the support being “whatever the local authority considers fit”, it could be something like “whatever the local authority considers fit, having regard to guidance that it may receive from the Department for Education,” or from Ofsted or whoever it might be.
- Many people are surprised to learn that while a school pays for a child to enter GCSEs, home educators do not get that benefit. If we want to make home education viable — and ensure children are actually learning, not just out of school — we need to address that long-standing gap. Will Ministers consider it?
I will just register this point again for Ministers to consider. A lot of people are surprised to learn that although a school will pay for a child to enter GCSEs and the like, home educators do not enjoy that benefit. If we want to make it easier for people to home school their children properly, rather than their children just being out of school, we need to address that long-standing issue. I wonder whether Ministers will consider that point?
- Apart from cost, there is the simple question of access — children being able to sit the GCSE at all. Local authorities should be required to ensure entry to examination centres is available to home-educated children.
My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my final point. Apart from the cost issue, there is the simple question of access and of children being able to sit the GCSE. As there is a vast amount of detail involved, it would be helpful to say that local authorities should ensure that entry to examination centres is possible for those children.
- Information on how much time a child receives education from their parents, and where they receive education outside the home, is crucial to building the picture of a home-educated child's circumstances — Amendment 62 would prevent that. A six-hour weekly threshold in Amendment 63 could create loopholes for unregistered independent schools operating just under the limit. Amendment 86 on domestic abuse: parents are only required to provide information they actually know — they would not need to seek out an estranged partner's address — and the data will be subject to UK GDPR protections. Amendment 65 on affirmative procedure: the Bill already provides for the affirmative procedure in proposed new section 436C.
Amendments 62, 63 and 64, in the names of the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and amendment 86, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would remove requirements for parents to provide certain information for children not in school registers. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 makes it clear that it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children “receive efficient full-time education suitable” for them. We know that many parents work hard to do so, including parents who home educate. However, some children not in school are not receiving a full-time education that allows them to achieve and thrive. Where that is the case, it is essential that local authorities can identify and support them. This is a fundamental objective of the children not in school register. Information on the amount of time that a child receives education from their parents, combined with information on where the child receives education other than with their parent, is a crucial part of building the picture of home-educated children’s circumstances. Amendment 62 would mean that that picture could not be built. Often, the circumstances will differ greatly from child to child; for example, home-educated children do not have set hours in the same way as children at school. Amendments 63 and 64 would potentially create loopholes in the registration system through their attempts to set a time threshold or to exempt weekends and holidays from the parental duty to provide information about out-of-school education providers. Six hours per week at a provider could represent a large proportion of a child’s learning, especially for children with additional needs that limit their ability to engage with teaching for prolonged periods. Equally, children who could spend five hours per week or the whole weekend in an unsafe setting and home-educated children would not have the protective factor of a…
- The intent was clearly to publish *aggregate* data on the cohort — not individual results. Does the Minister have a principled objection to publishing aggregate attainment data for home-educated children?
I would have thought it was pretty clear that our intent was to provide information on the aggregate rather than the individual. Of course we do not publish individuals’ GCSE results anywhere, but does the Minister have a disagreement in principle with the idea of publishing aggregate data on the achievement of this group of young people?
- That is not something we are currently considering. DFE headline data focuses on pupils in state-funded schools; including home-educated children would distort school performance figures. The Joint Council for Qualifications already publishes results by qualification and subject for all students — that includes home-educated children — and it would not be appropriate for DFE to separate out that cohort.
That is not something that we are currently considering, but the shadow Minister’s point will be recorded in Hansard. The Department for Education is responsible for driving high and rising standards in state schools across the country. DFE headline data is therefore focused on pupils at the end of key stage 4 attending state-funded schools in England. To hold state-funded schools to account, the Department publishes performance data for schools and colleges. The purpose of that performance data is not to provide information about the attainment or achievement of individual pupils. The Department publishes performance data at a regional and national level, so that it can track the performance of the state-funded sector. Including children not educated in the state school system would distort these figures and make it more difficult to monitor the performance of state schools. In choosing to home educate, parents are opting out of this system and assuming responsibility and accountability for the education of their child, whether they choose GCSEs or any other type of qualification. I also recognise that some home-educating children choose not to take any public examinations. This data would therefore offer an incomplete picture of the outcomes of this cohort. A comprehensive view of outcomes for home-educated children cannot be based on a single measure. That is why clause 25 includes powers to require additional information to be held on the children not in school register and for this information to be provided to the Department so that it can be analysed and actions can be taken at a national level to support these children. It is also true that, on results day, the Joint Council for Qualifications already publishes results by qualification and subject. This is data for all students taking that GCSE, including home-educated children, adults and independent and state school pupils. It would therefore not be appropriate for the Department to publish the results of…
- The Government are not lambasting parents for taking their children out of school. But we must know who every adult is who comes into a child's education — the information required will let us ensure that children are safe whether they are being home educated by a parent or using another provider.
I know that parents who are home educators have faced a tough decision on this. Looking at the information provided, I think it is clear from the Government that we are not lambasting or judging those parents for taking their children out of school. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that we know who and where every single adult is who comes into a child’s education? The listing that we are providing will enable us to do that, to ensure that children aresafe whether they are being home educated by a parent or using another provider within their home education setting.
- These measures are proportionate and are about keeping every child safe. Where a child is eligible for the register, the local authority will have a duty to provide support to parents who request it — not just a minimum baseline but with discretion to go further. Data will be protected under UK GDPR, and local authorities can use information from the register to identify families who may feel forced into home education because of school dissatisfaction or mental health concerns.
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. These measures are proportionate and are to ensure that every child is kept safe. I welcomed the comments from the shadow Minister earlier; we seek cross-party support on these measures to keep all children safe. Where a child is eligible for inclusion on the children not in school register, the local authority will have a duty to provide support to the parents of that child if the parent requests it. By focusing support on advice and information, we can ensure that local authorities give a consistent baseline level of support to those who request it. We know that some authorities are already offering carefully considered support packages that go beyond the baseline to meet the needs of families in their local areas. Authorities will continue to have the discretion to offer that additional support. The measures set out how local authorities in England may share information from their registers with other relevant local authorities and specified bodies, and how they are required to share information with the Secretary of State on request. Appropriate information sharing will create a more complete picture of individual children, and where necessary, support multi-agency safeguarding arrangements. We will also ensure that the data collected is protected. Local authorities, as data controllers, must process data in accordance with the principles of UK GDPR legislation, and ensure that any data that they process is kept safe and secure. This applies to data collection, storage and sharing, as well as respecting the rights of individuals to access, rectification and erasure. Picking up on the points that colleagues have raised, more broadly, these measures provide local authorities with a proportionate power to ensure that children receive a suitable education and are kept safe. These measures would take us to a level that the vast majority of western countries are already at, and many other countries go much further, even ban…
- At the moment, not all local authorities provide support to home-educating parents. Will these measures place a duty on local authorities to provide help and support when requested, and will there be a mechanism for sharing best practice?
On that point, we know that at the moment, not all local authorities provide support to our home-educating parents. Will these measures allow for some best practice to be shared, and place a duty on local authorities to provide help and support if requested?
- Yes — local authorities will have a new duty to provide support to parents who request it. We expect statutory guidance to set out how that duty should be discharged to ensure consistency, rather than significant variation depending on where in England a family lives.
I know that my hon. Friend has been meeting home educators in her own local authority area who have had a difficult relationship with Portsmouth city council. I know that she will take those concerns to that local authority and feed back to home-educating parents. To address a point that was raised earlier, local authorities may also be able to analyse information from the registers and take action, should that be deemed necessary—should families feel forced into home education due to dissatisfaction with schools or mental health concerns, for example. The hon. Member for Twickenham also raised a number of points about the disproportionate impact on SEND families. We have undertaken a thorough equality impact assessment, and this information will allow local authorities to provide more tailored support to those children.
- We will withdraw today, but we remain unconvinced that the shared objectives for this Bill could not be met in a more proportionate and less bureaucratic way. We hope their Lordships will look at this again.
We will withdraw our amendment today, but overall, we are still not persuaded that the objectives that we all share for this Bill could not be met in a more proportionate and less bureaucratic way. I hope that their lordships will have further thoughts on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Amendment 69 would create a right of appeal for schools named in a school attendance order nomination notice — a right that would not delay the order, because the amendment specifies the school remains responsible for the child's education during any appeal. Without this, a school cannot challenge a nomination even if a completely inappropriate child is ordered to attend. I also have concerns about Clause 26 more broadly: proposed new section 436I of the Education Act 1996 requires local authorities to consider 'how the child is being educated and what the child is learning' — there is a slightly Orwellian ring to a local authority deciding what is appropriate for a parent to teach their child. And what is the maximum prison sentence for failure to comply? Proposed new section 436P(8) refers to 'level 4' — up to 51 weeks. Given the devastating impact on a child of imprisoning their parents, will the Government reconsider?
The amendment would set up a right of appeal. A lot of other measures in the Bill have rights of appeal—we have discussed some of them in earlier sittings—and such an appeal would not hold up an order because the amendment specifies that “During the appeal period, the school will be responsible for the education of the child.” However, the amendment would give the school the right to an appeal where a completely inappropriate child is ordered to attend it. Although we support the principle of the clause, we have a number of concerns. First, subsection (2) of the proposed new section 436I of the Education Act 1996 sets out points that the local authority must consider when deciding if a school attendance order is appropriate. Those points include considering “how the child is being educated and what the child is learning, so far as is relevant in the particular case”. I hope the Minister agrees that this needs careful thought, in consultation with families. There is a slightly Orwellian ring to the idea of a local authority deciding what it is appropriate for a parent to teach their child. In practice—as Members have said—many parents of children with special needs do not home educate as a positive choice but because their child was not thriving in the local school. Those parents might find it overbearing to have this kind of scrutiny of their efforts. What does the Government plan to do to allow them to have input into this approach? Will the Minister confirm the maximum prison sentence for failure to comply with a school attendance order? Proposed new subsection 436P(8) of the 1996 Act states “level 4” and my understanding is that could be as much as 51 weeks. Given everything we know about the impact on a child of imprisoning their parents, will the Government reconsider the potential sentence, since, in many cases, it would result in a child or children being taken into care?
- Amendment 69 is unnecessary. Proposed new section 436M of the Education Act 1996 already provides that a school can request a direction from the Secretary of State within 10 days of being told of the local authority's intention to name them in a nomination notice. That mirrors the existing right in section 439 of the 1996 Act. The amendment would also disadvantage children by placing no time limit on when an appeal may be brought, so a school could disrupt a child's education at any point after an order is issued.
The amendment seeks to provide a route of appeal to the adjudicator for a school named in a nomination notice for a school attendance order. It is unnecessary because there is an existing route of appeal in proposed new section 436M of the Education Act 1996. That new section provides that a school can request a direction from the Secretary of State within 10 days of being told of the local authority’s intention to name them in a nomination notice. That reflects the existing legislation, as the same right is contained in section 439 of the 1996 Act.
- So to be clear: the only appeal route for a school is to the Secretary of State personally, acting in a judicial capacity — not to an independent adjudicator?
To be clear, instead of having an appeal to, say, the adjudicator, the only appeal would be to the Secretary of State, who would be acting in a judicial capacity in that respect.
- Yes, that is my understanding. The provision strikes the right balance between giving schools a say and protecting a child's right to a safe and suitable education. On the penalty level: the increase from level 3 to level 4 brings non-compliance with school attendance orders into line with knowingly allowing a child to be absent from school. It is not our intention to criminalise parents — prosecution will be a last resort after ample opportunity to demonstrate suitable education.
Yes, that is my understanding. The provision proposed by the Bill strikes the right balance between giving schools a say and protecting a child’s right to a safe and suitable education. The amendment is therefore not only unnecessary but would disadvantage children. By placing no time limit on when an appeal may be brought, it means that a school could appeal at any time after being named in a notice. That could result in a child’s education being disrupted unexpectedly and impact the child’s sense of security and belonging in the school. I therefore kindly ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment. I will now speak to the clause. Parents of every child of compulsory school age must secure efficient and full-time education that is suitable to that child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs. When children are not receiving a suitable education, the school attendance order process addresses that through requiring regular attendance at a named school. The clause amends the school attendance order process in England to extend and strengthen it. In addition to addressing instances when a child is not in receipt of suitable education, as school attendance orders do now, the orders will also act as, first, a consequence for parents not providing information for a local authority’s children not in school register and, secondly, will provide a route for a home-educated child to attend school if that child is subject to a child protection inquiry or a child protection plan and the local authority decides that it would be in the child’s best interest to do so. When a local authority has concluded that it is necessary to begin the school attendance order process, the first step is for the authority to issue the parent with a preliminary notice. That notice will require parents to evidence that their child is receiving a suitable education and, in the case of a child subject to a child protection process, that it is in the child’s best interest to rece…