Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

The pleasure, my Lords, in speaking quite late in a debate such as this one—I think I am listed as the 59th speaker—is the opportunity of hearing excellent earlier speeches. In that regard, I refer to the speeches of the four former Secretaries of State: the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard of Northwold, the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Baker of Dorking, and my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley. I am so glad that three of them are here to hear this praise.

I wish to address the subject of home schooling. This is covered in Clauses 30 and 31 of the Bill, covering pages 50 to 64. Clause 30 is directed to “Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school” and Clause 31 is directed to registration of children not in state school education. These provisions cover altogether 14 pages of the Bill and are, I suggest, too long and too complicated. Regrettably, we no longer legislate on principle but in tight definitions. As a result, we have before us a very detailed Bill of some 137 pages—not as long as other Bills that your Lordships are currently considering, but still, I suggest, too long.

I first got to know about home schooling during the ill-fated passage of the last Government’s Schools Bill in 2022. Home schooling covers only about 1% of all schooling in the United Kingdom, but it remains very important. A common characteristic of home-school parents is that most, although not all, have had a university education. Why do they want to home-school their children? It can be said very simply: to obtain a better education. I will give two examples of that. First, their children get one-to-one education at home, as opposed to in a school class of 30 or more pupils. Secondly, they have a choice of subjects not available in their local state schools. I refer, for example, to classics. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke earlier about the value to him of having had a classical education.

I should disclose at this stage that I have one grandchild who has recently been moved to home education by my son and daughter-in-law because he had become completely unsettled in state education. My worry is the test in the Bill that has to be applied by local authorities in their decision to agree to a child moving from a school to home education.

In new Section 434A(4) of the Education Act 1996 on page 51 of the Bill—one of the complications of this Bill is that it refers back to that Act—it appears that the test is whether the child is suffering from “significant harm” in state education. This is completely the wrong way round. The test should be whether the child is going to benefit from home schooling. The position is not clear, because in new Section 434A(6), also on page 51, the suggested test is what is in the “best interests” of the child.

This is all the victim of excessively complicated legislation that will make it so hard for home-educating parents, and indeed for anybody who has to construe the provisions of this Bill. May Bills become more simple.