Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Bishop of St Albans

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I rise to express sincere condolences to the Royal Family at this time of loss and grieving. As many noble Lords have said, it is true that the whole UK is grieving in a similar way.

The Queen represented us in all sorts of ways for her whole life and for 70 years of public service, and she was absolutely tireless. I first met her when she opened City Hall in 2002. We were a new Assembly, we had a mayor and it was all very exciting to be in a new building. It was obvious that she took it very seriously. She went along the line-up at the end, probably 80 or 90 people, as if she was really enjoying it. Prince Philip took the opportunity of telling me what was wrong with the Greens. He told me quite forcefully, and I took it to heart; perhaps he was right.

I met her on other occasions, and the same attitude was there: absolute dedication to and concentration on what she was doing at the time. It was not like someone doing a job or performing their duty but someone who seemed interested and curious in what was happening.

I had a tiny taste—a glimmer—of what it was like to do such public service when I was deputy mayor under Ken Livingstone. He gave me lots of jobs he did not want to do—to meet people, go to meetings and make speeches he did not want to make. It was the first time ever that I was not representing myself or my political party. Sometimes I had to do things that were at odds with my nature: being very polite, listening to boring speeches and generally appearing to be interested and polite the whole time. I found that putting on a fascinated face, which is what Her Majesty did for 70 years, was incredibly difficult. I did that for 13 months; she did it for 70 years. It left me feeling what an extraordinary woman and an amazing monarch she was.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I join in with the tributes to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth for the extraordinary reign we have observed, for which we pay tribute today.

Like many noble Lords, I too have my anecdotes. I remember going up to stay in Sandringham for the weekend. Coming from a farming background, I had expressed interest in her racehorses and she was very keen to show them to me, so I was summoned outside. There was a Range Rover there, and she came out very brusquely and shouted across to me, “Jump in, Bishop; I’m driving”. She set off at a rate of knots, and I was holding on for dear life. She taught me a great deal about prayer at that point, which is perhaps why she was called Defender of the Faith.

I want to briefly draw your Lordships’ attention to one other thing about Her Majesty which I think is really significant. Some people have asked, “Why has she had such an impact?” One of the features or tendencies of many of those in leadership for a long time is that the longer they are in leadership, the less they really listen. What struck me about Her Majesty the Queen was that she really listened. I am not saying that she did it superficially. The first significant time I met her was when I had paid homage and, afterwards, we had a conversation. She immediately wanted to ask my views on various aspects of the history, industry and background of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. In an informed way, she showed that she absolutely knew what was going on—but what did I think about it? What did I think was happening?

Schools Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Bishop of St Albans

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 2
Monday 20th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am going to speak briefly as well, for several reasons: first, because I want to get home tonight; secondly, because I am cold; and, thirdly, because I quite agree that we do not want a terrible day on Wednesday.

Part of the fallacy on this children not in school register is the idea that local authorities do not already have the information about children who are not in school, but that is not true. For the most invisible children, who have had no contact with any service at all, of course it might apply; otherwise, the truth is that local authorities have a great deal of information about almost every child, whether they attend a school or not. Instead of adding yet more data collection, there should be an overhaul of how local authorities collect and process this data, and perhaps some sort of universality about it. That overhaul should be made in a code of practice, as set out in my Amendment 171S.

I have three other amendments in this group, which are basically probing because I feel that the legislation just does not have the detail that we need to understand exactly what it is going to do. Turning to the new registration requirements, I think the Bill really ought to be clearer about what information must be provided by home-educating parents to the local authority. We are left at the moment with “other information”, which leaves a large void of worry for the parents who will have to provide this information, which could be very probing and intrusive. I would much rather see such broad wording removed altogether or made subject to being necessary and in the child’s best interests. This group contains a range of possible ways forward, but the general gist is that the Minister must convince your Lordships’ House that any of this intrusive bureaucracy is needed in the first place.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I rise to speak to six amendments standing in my name. Amendment 101 removes from the register any requirement to record the means by which a child is being educated—something that ought to be discretionary on the parents. It replaces it with a less intrusive requirement to record only those details that demonstrate that the child is receiving a suitable education in accordance with the existing duty on parents to secure compulsory education for their child or children.

Amendment 105 curbs the local authorities’ proposed power to contain within the register

“any other information that may be prescribed”—

it is very broad and open to abuse—solely to instances where the safeguarding of the child is a concern. Surely that is the point.

Amendment 108 removes the wide-ranging power for local authorities to collect any other data they consider appropriate. Again, this is a highly undefined power that could be used to target individuals with protected characteristics, and it makes the state ever more intrusive. The amendment replaces this new subsection with a more clearly defined power permitting local authorities to collect special category data—such as ethnic origin, philosophical beliefs and sexual orientation—only in cases where the safeguarding of the child is concerned.

Amendments 111 and 112 ensure that parents are properly informed about the data collected: how it will be stored, shared, published, and when it will be deleted. These amendments are complementary to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, requiring the Secretary of State to introduce regulations related to the not in school register, which I welcome.

Finally, Amendment 127 safeguards any data collected by local authorities when directed by the Secretary of State to provide information on the register. This is done by requiring that all data is either aggregated or anonymised unless there is sufficient reason for the Secretary of State to request information relating to an individual child, the sufficient reasons listed being safeguarding concerns or issues of public safety and criminality.

At this stage, these are probing amendments. However, they reflect a number of serious concerns that many of us have about the danger that this Bill poses to home educators and the right they have to decide on a suitable education for their child. I do not oppose, in principle, a register containing information about home-schooled children in a local authority’s area. What concerns me is that the implementation of such a register as it exists within the Bill poses an attack on the principles of a free society where parents retain the discretion to educate their child in accordance with their own values. Without meaningful safeguards, this register could be the thin end of a slippery wedge resulting in Ofsted in the home: parents being mandated to teach specific things in a specific way, or being directed by law to send their children to school to receive a particular type of education.

After tabling these amendments, I decided to try and explore the rationale between the wide-ranging powers they sought to give to local authorities. I presumed there would be a vast array of evidence of why we desperately needed to have the collection of all this information. Well, the House of Lords Library kindly prepared a briefing at my request. The Government’s guidance from April 2019 stated that there was

“no proven correlation between home education and safeguarding risk.”

Furthermore, the Library was unable to provide any information on the exam success rates of children receiving an elective home education. However, from a cursory glance online, there is quite a lot of evidence to strongly suggest that children receiving EHE outperformed their counterparts in state education, so it is entirely reasonable to ask the Government why they believe local authorities should have the right to collect highly sensitive data pertaining to things that are not necessarily relevant to the child’s education. A register simply to track the number of home-educated children, at its core, is a sensible proposal. Likewise, there may be understandable instances where information beyond that needed just to register the child is required, but surely this should be the exception not the rule.

Her Majesty’s Government need to provide the rationale behind this proposal to give local authorities the right to collect to contain “any other information” they consider appropriate. This must be more specific so that there exists a clear legal boundary determining what information a local authority can collect, and for what specific reasons. Currently, this broad ambiguity allows local authorities to request entirely inappropriate special category data without good reason.