Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Crisp and Baroness Morris of Bolton

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, if Amendment 211 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment 215 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 211A, which is in my name. I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is one of the biggest issues in the Bill. Why the words

“in the child’s best interests”

have appeared here and not elsewhere seems strange. They seem slightly out of place.

It may be that it is late in the evening, and I am going slightly brain-dead, but it seems that what is written in the Bill is internally contradictory. It says that the local authority

“must refuse consent if the local authority considers …that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school, or”—

going back to my education, I assume this is the law of excluded middle—

“that no suitable arrangements have been made for the education of the child otherwise than at school”.

If it is alternatives, then presumably new Section 434A(6)(b)(i) means that there are cases when suitable arrangements have been made for the education of the child otherwise than in school, but it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school. Unless I have that completely wrong, it seems that this is something of a muddle anyway in the presentation of this account.

The bigger point, rather than simply that, is the one the noble Lord makes about who decides what is in the best interests and what we mean by it. I have suggested in my amendment to leave out

“that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”

and replace it with the actions mentioned further up the page in new subsection (4)(a) where the inquiries

“have led the local authority to conclude that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm (within the meaning of section 31(9) and (10) of—”

the Children Act 1989.

In other words, keep this about abuse and about child protection, and do not introduce the wider consideration of

“in the child’s best interest”,

whatever that means, as well as, as I said, the logical inconsistency of the framing that is down on paper.