Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eighth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Amendment 46 is very similar to amendment 33, in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, in that it removes subsection (3) and condition A, and for much the same reasons. We are extremely concerned that a parent wanting to remove their child with special educational needs and disabilities from a special school will be subject to this extra bureaucracy.

We know that we have a SEND crisis. There are so many parents, even when their child is in a special school, who feel that the school is not meeting their child’s educational needs and that their child is better served through a home education. I would point out that the local authority does not always have the best information on children in special schools. They will be turning to the schools themselves for a view, maybe more so than to the parents. There may be a bit of iniquity there.

I would like to question the Minister on the circumstances in which the local authority can refuse permission. Condition A implies almost an equivalence between children with special educational needs and children where there are safeguarding concerns, which seems quite a parallel to draw in legislation. The other question I have is about the timescale for the decision making. We know that local authorities can get bogged down in their processes. How does the Minister plan to ensure that authorities are not taking a long time to grant permission to parents to take their children out of special needs schools when they feel that school is not meeting their child’s needs?

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a very long-standing right in England for a parent to choose to send their child to school or to educate at home. It is a right that the vast majority of parents never take up, but which nevertheless could be considered a fundamental parent’s right. The condition is always that the child must be receiving a suitable education. That phrase, “a suitable education”, has never been defined in law, and on occasion that creates some tensions. School should be right for the vast majority of children. A school system is designed to apply to the vast majority of children. The Bill is right to introduce a register of children not in school. That was also our policy when in government, but I think the balance is wrong between the detail of information required of parents and the support on offer.

Although the number of children in elective home education has been growing, the data collection is relatively new and has been mandatory only since autumn 2024, so some of that growth—as the DFE statisticians themselves say—will be because of that effect. It had been rising even before covid, and then there was a distinct covid effect, which we can see in the numbers. There are multiple reasons why children might be out of school and being educated at home—because of their special needs, perhaps because they have been bullied badly at school, or for various mental health reasons.

Some parents make the most enormous sacrifices in their lives to provide a suitable education for their child. I was reminded by someone who came to my surgery the other day that they are not all in terrible circumstances. This mother said to me, “There’s nothing wrong with our life at all. We do this because we think it’s the right thing for our family.” It is her right, too.

As a society, we have a moral imperative to know that children are safe. That is where exceptions to rights kick in. There is a really important distinction to be made here. Sometimes, people talk about a growth in elective home education as being a safeguarding concern. It is not. There is nothing about educating a child at home that is intrinsically a safeguarding concern, but it is also the case that if a neglective parent had the opportunity to take a child out of school, they might abuse that. That does in no way besmirch or call into question the overall concept of elective home education or the parents doing it.

Like those colleagues who have just spoken, I am worried about condition A in subsection (3)—that a child attending a special school would need the same permission as a family under investigation. From our surgeries, when we meet parents who are educating at home, it quite often concerns a child who was at a special school. It strikes me as very peculiar to say that we should group together a child, because they have special educational needs or a disability, with those families that are a subject of concern.

I hope the Minister can help with me this, because I might have just missed it, or might be being thick, but I am a bit confused about the terminology in the Bill, which refers in multiple places to education “otherwise than at school”. Ordinarily, that has a different meaning from elective home education. Education otherwise than at school, commonly known by its acronym of EOTAS, is different. Elective home education is parent-led; it is a voluntary choice that can be made by any parent for their child, and then it is left to them. They will then have, at least today, minimal support from the local authority.

EOTAS is different. It is something legally mandated but available for children with special educational needs or disabilities. It is agreed with the local authority. The local authority is then responsible for providing support. One often talks about an EOTAS package that is put around the child, which may involve some tutoring, some online stuff and various other things. Often, the child has an education, health and care plan in place. Again, I ask forgiveness if I have just misread this, but when we talk about applying to take a child into education otherwise than at school, I just do not understand how that works. Perhaps the Minister can help me.

For further clarification, subsection (8)(b) talks about notifying

“any other parent of the child…unless exceptional circumstances apply”.

I wonder if it might be helpful to define a little more what those exceptional circumstances are, because one can imagine difficulties where there is an abusive relationship, and the nature of that abusive relationship may not be known to the authorities at the time. There may be an incarcerated parent or various other conditions.

Finally, for clarification, subsection (10)(b) says that, by way of an appeal mechanism,

“the parent may refer the question to the Secretary of State”

That is quite a thing for a regular parent to take on. No doubt the intent is some sort of mechanism to appeal, not personally to the Secretary of State, but to a representative of the Department for Education. Will the Minister say a word about what that mechanism is and how it will be accessed?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his thoughtful contribution, speaking from the heart on why the measures in this landmark Bill are so important.

Amendments 33 and 46 seek to amend the clause to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home educate should the child attend a special school arranged by the local authority. It is necessary to have that requirement. It provides a check to ensure that home education is in the best interests of the child, and that there are no education suitability issues resulting from no longer attending a special school.

A similar requirement has existed in secondary legislation for many years. I consider it appropriate for such a requirement to be in primary legislation to ensure consistency as part of the new package of consent requirements. I do not consider that children in those circumstances are necessarily at greater risk, but they will have a higher level of need when it comes to ensuring a suitable education. Therefore, no longer attending a special school may impact educational provision and is vital to ensure that it is in the best interests of the child to be home educated, and that suitable arrangements have been made for their education before the child comes off roll. Therefore, for the reasons I have out- lined, I ask the hon. Members kindly to withdraw their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I join colleagues in finding troubling the level of detail to be required of home-educating parents. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston would make sensible adjustments to that, for example by deleting the requirement to show the split between how many hours are done by parent 1 and how many by parent 2. The Government could also amend the frequency of reporting to something more reasonable—or, handily, there is a piece of text ready and waiting, because a private Member’s Bill last year from my then hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley contained the text for a proposed new section 436C.

Proposed new section 436E concerns providers. Did Ministers consider approaching this measure in a completely different way? They could have said that the onus should be on the provider to say who they are and to demonstrate their bona fides, with Disclosure and Barring Service checks and so on, as part of a light-touch registration regime. I am not necessarily advocating such a scheme, but what other models were thought about?

On proposed new section 436G, Ministers will know that a gripe of home-educating parents is that a lot is asked of them but little is offered back. Might it be sensible to change the wording? Instead of the support being

“whatever the local authority considers fit”,

it could be something like “whatever the local authority considers fit, having regard to guidance that it may receive from the Department for Education,” or from Ofsted or whoever it might be.

[Neil O’Brien]

I will just register this point again for Ministers to consider. A lot of people are surprised to learn that although a school will pay for a child to enter GCSEs and the like, home educators do not enjoy that benefit. If we want to make it easier for people to home school their children properly, rather than their children just being out of school, we need to address that long-standing issue. I wonder whether Ministers will consider that point?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my final point. Apart from the cost issue, there is the simple question of access and of children being able to sit the GCSE. As there is a vast amount of detail involved, it would be helpful to say that local authorities should ensure that entry to examination centres is possible for those children.

[Stephen Morgan]

Amendments 62, 63 and 64, in the names of the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and amendment 86, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Twickenham and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would remove requirements for parents to provide certain information for children not in school registers.

Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 makes it clear that it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children

“receive efficient full-time education suitable”

for them. We know that many parents work hard to do so, including parents who home educate. However, some children not in school are not receiving a full-time education that allows them to achieve and thrive. Where that is the case, it is essential that local authorities can identify and support them. This is a fundamental objective of the children not in school register.

Information on the amount of time that a child receives education from their parents, combined with information on where the child receives education other than with their parent, is a crucial part of building the picture of home-educated children’s circumstances. Amendment 62 would mean that that picture could not be built.

Often, the circumstances will differ greatly from child to child; for example, home-educated children do not have set hours in the same way as children at school. Amendments 63 and 64 would potentially create loopholes in the registration system through their attempts to set a time threshold or to exempt weekends and holidays from the parental duty to provide information about out-of-school education providers.

Six hours per week at a provider could represent a large proportion of a child’s learning, especially for children with additional needs that limit their ability to engage with teaching for prolonged periods. Equally, children who could spend five hours per week or the whole weekend in an unsafe setting and home-educated children would not have the protective factor of attending a properly registered school for the other five days of the week.

The amendments would mean that parents are not required to inform their local authority that their child was receiving education in such settings, by virtue of the provision falling below an arbitrary time threshold or taking place on the wrong day of the week, such as at the weekend. There is too much potential for unregistered independent schools to exploit this to avoid detection.

Amendment 86 seeks to remove the requirement that the names and addresses of a child’s parents are provided for registers when a safeguarding concern is identified by either parent. To build a full picture of the circumstances of a child’s home education, it is necessary to include the name and address of each parent.

We know that there will be safeguarding concerns around some parents that mean that they are not or should not be allowed to be involved in the child’s education or have contact with the child, such as where there have been instances of domestic violence. The duty requires only that parents provide information that they know. Parents would not be required to seek out an estranged partner to provide their address if they do not know it, and the data held on the registers will be subject to data protection law, with the requisite restrictions on access and disclosure of personal and identifying information. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Amendment 65, tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, would require that where the Secretary of State wants further information about children to be included in children not in school registers, regulations subject to the affirmative procedure have to be made. The Bill already provides for the affirmative procedure in proposed new section 436C, within clause 25, so I ask the hon. Members not to press the amendment.