Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Meston

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502G in this group. This amendment would ensure that Part 2 of the Bill complies with Article 2 in Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the United Kingdom not only signed and ratified but incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.

My amendment is based on the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol 1, which provides:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


Part 2 of the Bill directly engages this article, since the Government will be, in the words of the ECHR, “assuming many new functions in relation to teaching and education”. For example, local authorities will be given sweeping new powers to monitor, register and regulate the independent sector. The Secretary of State will be empowered to regulate proprietors of independent schools, arrange inspections, prescribe standards and suspend registration. He or she will be able to make regulations using Henry VIII powers so as to dictate which educational institutions are covered, and to mandate the national curriculum for academies using yet more Henry VIII powers to regulate the contents of the four key stages, as well as attainment and assessment targets. We are well within the Article 2, Protocol 1 envelope. I know that this Government take their ECHR obligations very seriously.

Without my amendment, these new powers in the Bill would impede the right of parents to ensure an education for their children which accords with their own religious and philosophical convictions. Why is that? It is because Article 2 is about parents having the right to choose which education and teaching is right for their children. As the Strasbourg court said in a Danish case, Article 2 of Protocol 1 aims

“at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the ‘democratic society’ as conceived by the Convention”.

Our very own Supreme Court recognised this need for plurality in a case in 2020 concerning members of the Orthodox Jewish community. The court stated that their needs are different from those who are not members of that community, and they have a need for their own community facilities, including schools. The same could be said for members of other faiths who choose schools which support their religious and philosophical convictions, such as Christian schools.

This is all about the primacy of parental choice. I repeat: it is about the primacy of parental choice. Whether it is an academy, a single-sex school, a language or music school, a faith school or indeed a maintained school, parents must have the freedom to choose an institution whose ethos accords with their own religious and philosophical beliefs and with what they perceive is best for their children. This may mean choosing a school which has freedom to innovate, without regulation by the state, so as to promote the skills and talents of each pupil, including varying the curriculum or attainment targets and adapting assessment procedures or the daily schedule with a view to bringing out the best in each and every child. All these are the hallmarks of our diverse educational landscape and exemplify the rights which Article 2 of Protocol 1 protects.

As it stands, Part 2 fails to respect such rights. Therefore, my amendment is surely unobjectionable and indeed to be welcomed by all who value maximising the unique talents of our children in an educational environment consistent with the religious and philosophical upbringing their parents have chosen.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 469 and 470 and have added my name to Amendment 502F. However, I suggest that altogether more forthright and comprehensive embedding of the UNCRC into English law is now both appropriate and overdue, even if that cannot be fully achieved under this Bill. That convention was signed by the United Kingdom, among many others, as long ago as 1991. It commands widespread respect. Since then, England has fallen out of step with Wales, where, as we have been told, a measure in 2011 placed an express duty on Ministers to have regard to the rights and obligations in the convention. England is yet more out of step with Scotland, where the convention was fully and directly incorporated into law by statute last year. Amendment 470 would align England with Wales, but not yet with Scotland.

Amendment 502F would impose a duty on public authorities, not just on Ministers, yet both fall short of unqualified incorporation. The convention provides a wide-ranging and valuable list of rights which should be an invaluable checklist for any public authority. Even if some may criticise parts of it as idealistic and aspirational, the convention both sets and raises standards, and specific articles of the convention supplement current gaps in practice and procedure and enhance accountability. Without going into too much detail, significantly, it was the first international convention expressly to recognise and underpin a child’s right to identity, as set out in Articles 7 and 8. This is not unimportant for migrant and unaccompanied children, or in the complexities of modern parental relationships.

Article 12 is widely recognised as important in requiring proper consideration of the views of a child on all matters affecting that child. Any family law practitioner can see the potential general and specific influence of many of the other articles. For example, Article 10.2 could influence disputes over child relocation. More broadly, several topics and problems discussed in the course of this Bill’s progress through Parliament are covered by the convention. Article 24 is relevant to the real problem of the poor take-up of vaccination for children; Article 28 to school attendance; and Article 33 to drugs. Overall, although I submit that these amendments could be more robust, they would be a step along the way to following Scotland.

Although I support Amendment 502F, I suggest that the drafting of proposed subsection (5) could be simplified to remove the double negative. Amendment 470 would require publication of reports every three years, and Amendment 502F would require them every five years. It would probably be better to co-ordinate the timing of any reports with those required under Article 44 of the convention itself, which may have been what was intended. Scrutiny of such reports is important to ensure that they are not selective and altogether uncritical, as can occur.

If we are serious about children’s rights, they should be incorporated into law—irrespective of any future formulation of human rights. These amendments should be accepted. I am glad that Amendment 502G has been added to this group; Governments have to balance children’s rights and parents’ rights with care. All children are entitled to equality of educational opportunity in a way that broadens horizons, rather than narrows potential. Children have rights and parents have rights, but parents also have responsibilities.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Debate between Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Meston

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken before on the Bill, and frankly, like others, I was rather astonished that this was a topic requiring legislation at all. Like the noble and learned Lord, I have been what you would probably call a low-level sentencer for a number of years.

I will make two points. First, in recent years, in my experience, the quality of pre-sentence reports has greatly improved: from what were sometimes formulaic and feeble reports to nowadays, in my more recent experience, really providing an insight into the defendant’s background, life and attitudes, and conveying realistic recommendations. To that extent, they must always be regarded as helpful, greatly improving on, as the noble Viscount described, representations made by the legal representatives after a few moments in the cells or in the court corridor before coming into court.

Secondly, this experience has led me to adopt the attitude that, whenever in doubt, a report should be directed. I, for one, never regretted directing a report. For that reason, I certainly support Amendments 5 and 6. In other words, pre-sentence reports should, wherever possible and sensible, be the norm.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I have not previously spoken on the substance of the Bill before, either, but I am very attracted by the noble Viscount’s amendment, for the reasons that he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have set out.

I think the Government have accepted that their Bill is not intended to prevent sentencers inviting pre-sentence reports in the case of personal characteristics. They are getting at the guidelines that should not take account of personal characteristics. However, there is a danger that, as the Bill stands, sentencers might be deterred slightly from seeking pre-sentence reports in the case of personal characteristics, even though, were the Bill not on the statute book, they would otherwise have done so.

The amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, sorts that out. It makes it absolutely clear that there is nothing to stop the sentencer seeking a pre-sentence report in the case of personal characteristics, if that is desirable for the purposes of the particular case. That is exactly what the legal position should be.

So, I strongly urge the Government to give close attention to Amendment 1 and indeed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which, as has been said, seeks to achieve the same thing. This is consistent with what the Government think their Bill allows for, but there is a danger that it might not have the effect they seek, whereas the noble Viscount’s amendment would clarify the position in what everyone must agree is the right way.