Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Together, these two amendments embody a balanced approach. Amendment 426D asks us to learn from those local authorities that have built constructive, low-conflict relationships with families. Amendment 426E asks us to ensure that, in our zeal to regulate, we do not inflict greater harm on the very children we seek to protect. In an era when parental choice, diversity of provision and flexibility of learning are increasingly recognised as vital, we cannot afford a heavy-handed approach that alienates families and risks undermining children’s welfare. If we are serious about promoting the best interests of children, and if we truly believe in both the duty of the state and the rights of parents, I urge the Government to give these amendments serious consideration. They represent a constructive step forward in reconciling oversight with respect, accountability with compassion and enforcement with the paramount principle that no child should be harmed in the name of regulation. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I support the thrust of both my noble friend’s amendments. The Department for Education has an important role to play in helping local authorities drive up the quality of their relationship with and service for the home-educating community. The department can provide leadership on this by giving local authorities the feeling that the Government understand what they are doing, and that is the direction that the Government wish to take. That needs to be transmitted. Doing it in a way which celebrates the achievements of local authorities, and draws out the best of what is happening and makes a good example of that, is a motivating and constructive way to do this. I hope that the Government will take this direction. Local authority home-educating departments tend to be small, a bit isolated and stuck at the back end of safeguarding, and subject to all the pressures that come from that activity. The department has an important role to play in helping get things right.

On my noble friend’s second amendment, as the Government will know from my previous amendments, this is a direction I very much support. We should be looking at the child first and punishing the parent second. I listened to the Secretary of State’s speech at the launch of the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report, and that was very much the spirit that I heard then. I hope it will be reflected in the Government’s answer today.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, on Amendment 426D, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right. It is important that good practice is shared between home educators and local authorities, and that the quality of home education is the best it can possibly be, and local authorities have a huge role to play in ensuring that happens. We already know—many noble Lords have mentioned particular examples—the sterling work local authorities have done with home educators.

I have a slight problem with the idea of the Secretary of State doing an annual report. We have seen dozens of other amendments decrying the fact that more information is required, but to put this annual report together would require doing exactly that—asking for all that form-filling and more information to come to the centre. There might be good practice where local authorities might wish to do a report—the amendment suggests an annual report—on the work that is going on with home educators and which could be shared with other home educators. To me, to put it in a formal way and say that the Secretary of State will produce an annual report is bureaucracy gone mad.

I am, in a sense, surprised by the second amendment. Schools are incredibly sensitive to the needs of children, particularly, as has been mentioned, those with neuro- diverse issues such as autism. They pull out all the stops to support those children. This amendment might create problems for the attendance policies of local authorities—policies that have been developed by the previous Government and this Government. We should recognise the work that goes on currently. Despite concerns, I can tell noble Lords that, in all the dealings I have had with schools, head teachers and teachers, they are more than sensitive to the needs of those pupils.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

427: Clause 36, page 79, line 16, at end insert—
“(c) institutions in England that cater for children placed with them for alternative provision by local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring unregistered alternative provision within the scope of routine oversight.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to my other amendments in this group.

This amendment concerns the practice of local authorities placing children in unregistered alternative provision. In my view, that should not happen. These children need quality provision, almost by definition. That they should be placed in unregistered provision by the state seems to me a complete dereliction of duty. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has a rather more subtle and nuanced approach to this; I very much look forward to listening to it.

Amendment 427B suggests to the Minister that the Government should tighten up on, or give themselves additional scope to deal with, unregistered illegal schools that seek to disguise themselves by splitting into separate parts. This is merely a technical issue that the Government should address.

The other amendments in this group address the challenge that the Bill presents to the Haredi community. Obviously, the same principles that I am addressing here will apply to other religious communities where they provide substantial education for their children, but I am focusing on Haredi because I have been talking extensively to them—though I claim no authority to speak for them and no deep knowledge of their life. The Haredi are a venerable and peaceful community. They are contributors to commercial life and to the common good, though they keep themselves apart in many ways.

It is part of the British way, as I understand it, to respect religions. The Haredi community, as with other religious communities, has cultural values that differ from those of wider society, such as treating sexuality as a private, more intimate, subject and having both specific gender roles and a stronger community structure. However, in my experience of the way in which this country is organised, we allow space for these differences and do not attempt to eradicate them, although we set boundaries and should be confident in doing so. There have been religions where murder and child abuse have been common features, and we are quite right to say, “No, those are off-limits”, whatever our religious belief. Where we choose to set those boundaries will change over time and be a matter for debate, obviously, but we should be confident in setting those boundaries.

This Bill, as it is currently understood, places the Haredi system of yeshivas beyond the boundaries set in the Bill; yeshivas would be outlawed by it. The principal conflicts are around the requirement that yeshivas would have to register at schools and thus be bound by the curriculum and moral teachings that we expect of independent schools. This, the community feels, would be fundamentally in conflict with the Torah and would make it impossible for them to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

The debate on this group has concerned the regulation of full-time educational settings. The discussion has touched both on that principle and on the regulation of part-time settings, which would be inappropriate to regulate as if they were full-time. I hope that, reflecting on the discussion, and bearing in mind the considerable discussions and engagement that have already happened and the commitment to continue that engagement, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that extensive reply. To pick up on some of the issues in the debate, I entirely understand what the noble Baronesses, Lady Morris of Yardley and Lady Blackstone, are saying. If children are not receiving their entitled education, we need to do something about that. That is part of the basic contract, as I understand it, between the state and any education system. The child has a right to an education, and if for whatever reason it is not being provided, that is not tolerable.

It is surely important for the Government to indicate to the Haredi community and others which way forward they favour. I hope I am not leaping too far ahead in my understanding of where the Government want to go, but are they preferring to say that they would like to see yeshivas registered as schools but they will make sure that the regulations that apply to yeshivas do not require them to violate their religious principles in the way that they teach? In other words, is the accommodation to be within that element of what we might normally require a school to provide by way of education, so that yeshivas are schools but are allowed to teach in a way which is consistent with the Torah and with their belief? That is one way forward.

The other way forward is that proposed by the right reverend Prelate and myself. I do not recognise the characterisation of the amendments in the Minister’s reply. We are specifically saying that settings should be exempt which do not provide education and which provide only religious instruction. In other words, the children’s education has to happen somewhere else; there has to be another space, another institution, which is providing that education. The religious space is not regarded as a school, because there is another space which is regarded as home education or a school. If there is somewhere else that is regarded as providing that child’s education, why should the yeshiva, or whatever, be regarded as a school too, because the function of education and school is being provided elsewhere?

First, I would like the Minister’s guidance on whether we are looking at a structure that aims to take yeshivas out of the definition of a school and makes it clear how a child’s education is being provided—whether that is the preferred way forward—or a structure that makes it possible for education consistent with the Torah to be provided within a regulated school. We owe this community a clear way forward, whereby they can focus on what they need to do and where they need to get to, and so those of us who support them can say, “You need to do this”, or “Let’s have a go at the Government because they are asking too much”, so we can have a dialogue on this issue. At the moment, we have a blank as to the Government’s intentions, and that really is not fair or satisfactory.

I really hope that the Government will find that answer. If the Minister wants to reply now, I shall understand, but otherwise I would be very grateful if she wrote to me giving a clear view of the Government’s preferred way forward. What is their opening offer? What would they like to see happen? The Bill as it stands just says, “Destroy these communities”. That is not the impression I get from what the Minister has said, so what is the other way forward? But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 427 withdrawn.