Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have added my name in support of Amendments 127 and 129 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and outlined so eloquently by her just now. I also signed her amendments on a similar topic during earlier stages of the Bill, and I commend her for pursuing this important topic throughout its passage. I was unable to be here for the debates we had on this issue in Committee but followed the detailed exchanges that the noble Baroness had with the Minister then. I know that they have been talking fruitfully outside the Chamber as well, which I was glad to hear.
Reading those earlier exchanges, however, I must say that I was struck by how thick the jungle of regulation has become in this area, and how hard it is as a consequence for parents and teachers of young people who are offered these important and beneficial experiences to help take up what can be truly life-changing opportunities for them. In a simpler era, I was somebody who benefited from such an opportunity. At the age of 13, I played a French ghost called Guillaume in a children’s television drama, broadcast on Halloween 1996. That opportunity came about by chance; the writer of the show had worked with some of the teachers at my state comprehensive. I think my casting had less to do with my acting prowess and more the fact I could do a passable French accent and bore a striking similarity to the chap who had been cast as the character who was to be my twin brother.
It was an unforgettable and formative experience. We went to film it in a ruined chateau in Dijon, and I was paid the princely sum of £400, which will always be the most pleasing payslip I have ever received. Crucially, I was given the opportunity on the condition that I carried on my work, and my dad had to come with me to make sure that I did the homework and schoolwork that I missed while we were away filming.
Looking at the forms and regulations that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has highlighted, and the even more forbidding system that could be brought about by the Bill as currently drafted, I wonder whether schools and families like mine would be able to seize the same opportunities as easily as I was able to 30 years ago. I therefore very much support the noble Baroness’s crusade to make this as simple as possible, including her call for a review of the 2014 regulations. When they were brought in during the coalition Government, there was a commitment then to look at them after 10 years. That time has now elapsed— I hope the Government will look at it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has said, what we have does not recognise the complexity of the creative industries and the sectors. This is a place where filming schedules can change at last minute, where young actors’ opportunities often overlap, and certainly where decisions need to be taken at a faster pace than the capacity of many local authorities to be able to. There is also a very important issue of equity and social mobility that lies behind this. The harder we make it for children from ordinary backgrounds to take up opportunities such as this, and if we give that impression by calling them an unauthorised absence or sending the message that this might adversely affect a school’s Ofsted ratings, then the fewer children from state schools we are going to see take up opportunities like this.
While the gap has been closing a bit in recent years, the arts and creative industries are sectors in which children from public and private schools seem to have a head start. A report by the Sutton Trust and the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre last November showed that BAFTA-nominated actors are still five times more likely to have attended a fee-paying school than the population as a whole. We are already missing out on countless other Ncuti Gatwas and Jodie Comers, to name just two talented actors from state schools who have managed to beat the odds, and we should be seeking to narrow that gap, not widen it. I hope that the Minister will support these sensible amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, when she comes to respond, and that she will also take the opportunity to send the message from the Dispatch Box that taking up opportunities such as this is very worth while for children of all backgrounds.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 148C and the other amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 157A, 161B, 161C, 164A, 175ZF and 254. Together, they address the foundations of Clause 32 and the proposed register of children not in school.
I begin by recognising where the Government have listened and where Ministers have accepted the need for stronger parliamentary scrutiny, clearer procedures and a narrowing of discretion through the affirmative process and other means. This deserves acknowledgement. Restraint is not a weakness in law; it is what makes power credible.
I want to address the deeper questions raised by Amendments 164A, 175ZF and 254. These are not separate concerns; they express a single constitutional proposition. We heard just now about the restrictions that many families in the creative industries will face, and I would extend that to all families, as many families have complex fast-changing lives. In home education, you have a lot of online activity. I do not think that there is necessarily a huge world of difference. I accept that children in acting have a particular situation, but those who are in home education circumstances also have quite complex schedules. Many of the same arguments that were made in relation to that group apply to many families that are going to be swept in by the Bill.
A universal and persistent register of lawful families, together with the data infrastructure that flows from it, is not a proportional response to safeguarding risk. Proportionality lies at the very core of the balance between legitimate state regulatory power and civil and convention liberties. Safeguarding in this country has always been based on thresholds, reasonable cause, identifiable risk and particular children. Clause 32 alters that logic: oversight becomes the default, while risk is inferred from how families respond to that oversight. This is a significant change in the relationship between families and the state. Once a universal system is built, it rarely remains narrow: secondary uses accumulate, data sharing expands and retention grows. Each future tragedy becomes an argument for more routine intervention.
None of this requires malice; it flows naturally from administrative logic and institutional risk aversion. The House should therefore ask a simple practical question: what problem does a universal register solve that cannot already be addressed through existing powers? The answer is none. Local authorities already have extensive safeguarding tools. They can make inquiries, assess needs, convene multi-agency responses and go to court. None of these powers requires a population-level database of lawful families. If the concern is that some children fall through the cracks, that is serious, but it does not logically entail universal monitoring. The proper response is to examine how targeted systems fail, as in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, and to strengthen the response under current rules, not construct permanent identification spying for hundreds of thousands of children, most of whom are not at risk and many of whom are educated outside school precisely because they are vulnerable. These amendments therefore ask the House to pause before constructing an infrastructure that normalises permanent oversight of lawful difference. They do not deny safeguarding; they challenge inevitability.
However, if the House is not persuaded to remove the register entirely, the minimum duty upon us is to bind it with strong statutory safeguards. This brings me to the second tier of amendments in this group: those concerned with review, transparency, and redress. My Amendments 148C and 161B would introduce time limits, rolling review, and active parliamentary reauthorisation. These are not wrecking devices but constitutional hygiene. Government is good at building systems but much less good at dismantling them. Review mechanisms force Parliament to look again with evidence in hand. They create a lawful route for correction, refinement, and, if necessary, reversal without waiting for scandal or litigation, which home education leaders and legal advisers suggest to me will spiral should such systems in their current form be taken forward.