Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Crisp(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to see that, in Motion K1, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has reduced the issue to being about only Section 31 and that she has provided a carve-out, as it were, for adoption. Imagine if you adopted a two year-old who had been in care and, 10 years later, you have to jump through another bureaucratic hoop, so I am very pleased to see that. I am sorry that the Government do not have that provision within their current approach.
When I raised this in an amendment—I think it was on Report—the Minister told me that in such a case, it would be a pure formality: that, in relation to an adopted child, the local authority would simply pass it through. In your Lordships’ House, we all know that what is a formality for the local authority can be a real worry and threat for the individuals involved. It is a threat of people passing judgment on them, and that is a really important point. However, this is not the only example of people who will be inappropriately caught within this amendment and within the Government’s current approach.
I want to give one example, which is known to both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the Minister. It is of a young boy who was abused and raped by his father. With the permission of his mother, I will read out or paraphrase a short extract from an email she sent to the Government. At the time when the care plan was created for her son, she said, he
“had made detailed disclosures of serious sexual abuse”
to the mother, to four police officers, to two doctors and a social worker
“yet the police had still not arrested the perpetrator and the family court offered … no protection”.
Under those circumstances, she said, the chair of the initial child protection conference agreed with herself, a doctor, a nurse and a police liaison officer that he should be placed on a care plan
“until his rapist had been arrested. This was done, and, I suspect, helped to speed up the arrest”,
she said.
This seems to be yet another classic case of somebody who should not be subjected to the retraumatising of going through this process again, with the possibility of receiving a school attendance order. That mother has been protecting and looking after that child, and making decisions on the way forward for the child. Being second-guessed in this way seems to me totally inappropriate.
The Minister is presumably opposing Motion K1. I would like to ask her how the Government will deal with these two issues of adopted children. In the other example, as that mother said to me, the family is not the same family as it was when the child was taken into care. It seems to me that it should be easy enough to get some kind of carve-out to pick out the point that it is only when the same circumstances pertain rather than when the child is essentially living in a different family. What guarantees will the Minister give to ensure not only that adopted children are not affected by this policy but that others, such as in the example I have used, are not affected?
I turn to the other point of Motion K1, which is that it is about anyone who has ever been in care, for whatever reason. My background is in health, and we recognise that health screening is a good thing, but sometimes it can do more harm than good. There is a danger and a parallel here, and in some of the rest of this Bill. In our zeal to do the right thing, we are in danger of doing more damage than good. If we look at the large number of people who will have to be considered—and at the enormous resources, and at the trauma that the process may put people through—I suspect that may be the case.
Let me be clear: I am in favour of a simple register. In a society where too many children disappear or are indoctrinated or abused, it is right that we should be able to identify where children are. Of course there will be rogues, but we should not treat every parent as suspicious. A very experienced local education authority officer told me that, with regard to safeguarding, they normally react to an issue or a sign, and for home education experienced home education officers know the signs. However, he added, this Bill treats everyone as guilty until proven innocent, and it is in danger of doing more harm than good.
My point in raising these issues is to ask the Minister how she will deal with the particular points that I raised about adoption, and about other people who would be inappropriately treated as though they were still in care. In addition, I ask how she will set about making sure that in the next stage of this Bill—namely, the setting of regulations that carry these things through to their impact—the Government will address some of these points and make a truly proportionate response to safeguarding.
There are plenty of home educators who are very happy to help them in this and have great experience in doing so. The vast majority of home educators, as we know, are reluctant ones. I speak partly because a member of my family adopted two children some years ago and sent them to school, but has reluctantly taken them out to home-educate them, at great sacrifice to her and to her family. That is the case for very many home educators. In passing some of what we have passed here, we must be careful to tell them that we do not think that they are all criminals, and that this needs to be a proper and proportionate response.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments regarding Motion A and the commitment to strengthen statutory guidance, and for the publication of interim findings in relation to Motion B for the multi-agency child protection teams. To the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I say that there are multiple pathfinders, and the one to which he referred—the one he was worried that my amendment might delay—was a different pathfinder from the one to which my amendment referred. It is easy to be confused with so many paths going on.
I turn to my Motion K1, and again acknowledge that the Government have done the right thing by introducing a new power for local authorities to withhold consent to home-educate a child where there are significant safeguarding concerns. Noble Lords know that we spent time testing the limits of what these concerns might be, in Committee and on Report, to ensure that they are proportionate. That has been informed in part by the tragic death of Sara Sharif, whose father took her out of school.
As we heard, in response to our debates, the Government broadened their initial definition of children who are eligible. Then, on Report, we tested the appetite of the House for a much wider scope, but this was rejected in the other place. Last night we all received a letter from Ministers that covered the response to the Sara Sharif safeguarding practice review. I have read the letter several times. I find it extraordinary that, although I explained to the Minister on Monday that my amendment would simply cover children who had been in the care system, there is no mention of those children or my amendment anywhere in the letter—unless I missed it. Either officials and Ministers do not understand the significance of care proceedings, which I find very hard to believe—particularly of the Minister at the Dispatch Box today—or there is no political will to engage with this subject. I feel uncomfortable saying this in the House but, reading the letter, that is what it feels like. Either way, it is a very unfortunate oversight.
As the Minister knows, in the hierarchy of safeguarding, the greatest concern is for children who are in care or care proceedings, where the state judges that they cannot stay safely with their birth parents. These children are at greater risk than those on a child protection plan, but the Bill as currently drafted, and the Government’s rejection of my amendment to the Motion, leaves this specific gap. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, you could have two children: one who was returned to their parents three years ago, having been in care, and another who came off a child protection plan three years ago. If the parents of both children want to take them out of school, the local authority cannot have a say on the first child, but it can on the second. I am guessing that the Minister does not feel entirely comfortable about that.
When the Minister says that almost all children will fall within existing proceedings, that is almost all children except Sara Sharif. Sara Sharif was on a child protection plan at birth, but she was never on a child protection plan again and there were two sets of failed care proceedings. She is precisely the child we should all be thinking about this evening.
I will finish by quoting the Secretary of State, who made a Statement on 13 November last year when the safeguarding practice review was published. She said:
“The whole country remembers with profound sadness the tragic murder of Sara Sharif by her father and stepmother in August 2023. Aged just 10 years old, the unimaginable cruelty of Sara’s death at the hands of those who should have been her first and brightest source of love and care shocked us all … The introduction of compulsory children not in school registers will empower local authorities to better identify children who need support and protection, as will the accompanying duties on parents of eligible children and out-of-school education providers”.
I emphasise the following:
“The measures will ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/25; col. 31WS.]
Outside this place, people will judge us not by what we said but by what we did. Let us be crystal-clear: without my amendment, these measures will not ensure that the most vulnerable children cannot be withdrawn from school until it is confirmed that doing so would be in their best interests. When the next serious case review happens—and sadly it will—I hope the House will remember this debate and the chance we had to do the right thing tonight by supporting my amendment when we come to vote later.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Can the noble Baroness acknowledge that in the case of Sara Sharif and many other children—she will be aware of the report into the 41 children who were home-educated and were either killed or seriously harmed—the current system clearly does not work and that this small but important loophole could be closed by my amendment? I would be grateful if she could confirm that that is this case.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Crisp(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
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.
Lord Crisp (CB)
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.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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—
Lord Crisp (CB)
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.
Baroness Barran (Con)
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.