Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak today—heavy because the legislation before us cuts to the very fabric of our democratic society, which was built on freedom of thought, parental responsibility and the rights of citizens not to be monitored by an overreaching state.

Our forebears fought two world wars, at unimaginable cost, to secure the freedoms we now risk throwing away so casually. They fought to defeat totalitarian ideologies that sought to control not only public life but private conscience and, crucially, the upbringing of the next generation. They knew, as we should know, that the surest route to tyranny is to hand the state unchecked power over the education of children.

It is a matter of historic record that, when Parliament passed the Education Act 1944, it deliberately safeguarded the right of parents, not the state, to determine their children’s education. Those drafters had seen the rise of fascism and Stalinism and understood that a truly free society must trust its citizens to raise their children in accordance with conscience, not dictate their upbringing through bureaucratic edict. Yet here we are.

I am a parent of home-educated children, and it is to the home education-related clauses that I now turn. The Bill proposes a mandatory registration system for all home-educated children. On the surface, some may see this as benign, yet it is far more than that. It represents an unprecedented intrusion into family life, granting local authorities sweeping powers to monitor, inspect and ultimately veto the parental right to educate outside the state system.

Starting with children deemed “vulnerable”—a term dangerously undefined and open to broad interpretation—it imposes a presumption of state control where there should be a presumption of parental competence. We are legislating to allow bureaucratic diktat over the most sacred responsibilities of family life. The Government argue that this intrusion is necessary for safeguarding, but I put it to this House that the supposed justification is flimsy at best and sinister at worst.

I am informed by a reliable source that the team in charge of home-education policy at the Department for Education has overseen counter-extremism and Prevent delivery. The following is a direct quote from a Department for Education job description from July 2023:

“The Deputy Director role in our Counter-Extremism and Non-School Education Division will oversee the frontline and online Prevent delivery in education ... In addition to working on counter-extremism, the division also includes a unit working on out-of-school settings”.


Am I right in thinking that, in seeking to address Islamist and other fundamentalist radicalisation, the department is now engaged, without public consultation or transparency, in mass information gathering against innocent families?

I ask the Minister: has her department already classed all home-educating families, and indeed any alternative school, as potential hotbeds for terrorism? Does this justify the indiscriminate targeting of home educators with invasive data collection far beyond anything required in mainstream schools? Does she recognise that many Muslim voters—who loyally support Labour—will be shocked to see their communities surveilled en masse in the way proposed, and treated with suspicion under these measures? Does she realise that countless parents, of all faiths or none, will feel equally aghast at being classed under suspicion of terrorism simply for exercising their legal rights?

Authoritarianism creeps not with jackboots but with forms and databases. We are told this is necessary for safeguarding, but the data tells a different story. Child protection investigations surged 200% from 2005 to 2022, yet 70% led to no action. Meanwhile, serious harm rates stayed unchanged. The majority of investigations are false positives, wasting precious resources and traumatising families—and still the truly abusive evade detection. If you build this registration system, it will produce the same outcome: bureaucratic drag, overwhelmed services and innocent families crushed under suspicion.

There is so much more to take issue with: from the lack of any appeal mechanism to the use of untrained officials to assess home education, to shocking real-world overreach by local authorities today, with families already documented under the current regime. Let us not forget the deeply intrusive personal data this Bill collects—names, health histories, special needs records—stored indefinitely, with no credible guarantee of security as we enter the age of quantum computing. The consequences of a breach would be devastating, yet the Government appear willing to roll the dice, putting our children’s sensitive data in one place to be hacked by bad actors.

But worse is the future this Bill opens up. Let me speak plainly: you are handing on a platter to a future hard-right coalition or extremist Government the very machinery to rip socialist, trade union, progressive and environmental ideals from the curriculum—remember the Henry VIII clauses—and replace them with a hard-right patriotism, with no escape through home education. You are destroying blindly the loyalty of future generations of voters, abandoning them to a nationalism that will never look back to Labour with pride or memory.

This is not mere theory. Only last month, Mr Farage said:

“That’s what you get folks, when teaching unions in this country are poisoning the minds of young people, not just against Reform, but against everything this country has ever stood for. I’ll make it clear, when we’re in a position of power, we will go to war with these left-wing teaching unions and make sure our kids are taught properly”.


You are handing the very tools for our future to your political opponents, just as Biden, by pursuing a progressive shift without the people’s true consent, handed Trump the means and populist mandate to strike back without restraint.

Home education has long thrived, not because of regulation but because of trust: trust that parents, not bureaucrats, are best placed to know what their children need; and trust that diversity of thought strengthens society rather than weakens it. I urge this House to reconsider, pause to think, and resist—before it is too late.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to the question that Clause 31 stand part of the Bill. I apologise to the Committee for not having taken part in Second Reading.

I also thank the Minister for her very clear statement at the start of this debate. I want to make a relatively short contribution to highlight one of the issues the Welsh Government wish to take forward in this Bill, and to acknowledge the constructive collaboration of the two Governments and their officers on this and other issues raised in the Bill. In particular, I want to make a few comments on children not in school registers. Liberal Democrats have long called for such a register, including in our recent manifesto. Here I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Storey, who initiated this work in his Private Member’s Bill on the subject.

We agree with the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner that the register can be an important tool in keeping children safe. We understand the legal responsibilities parents have to ensure that their children receive an education. As liberals we believe that parents have a right to choose home education where they feel this is the right choice for their child. However, we are very concerned that the whereabouts of hundreds of children in England and Wales are simply unknown.

Education is devolved to Wales, and the Welsh Government already operate a register on their children missing education database. However, the Welsh Education Secretary states in the legislative consent memorandum to this Bill that

“the children not in school provisions proposed in this Bill would enhance the”

children missing school

“policy (from a safeguarding perspective) with the CNIS register, school attendance order (SAO), strengthened suitability assessment and child protection clauses applying alongside the CME database arrangements”.

I am pleased that the Welsh Government have recognised that the provisions in this Bill as introduced would have resulted in local authorities in England having greater levels of contact with elective home-educated children than local authorities in Wales. If the provisions were not extended to Wales, as proposed by the tabled amendments, duties on families in Wales would be considered less stringent than those in England. I welcome the Welsh Government’s pragmatic approach, which should produce a seamless system between the two nations.

The action of the Welsh Government in taking this opportunity to enhance child protection measures is also commended by the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, who recognises the importance of addressing the gaps in provision to ensure that children not in school have all their rights fulfilled. It is to these rights that I would like briefly to turn. When we talk about a children not in school register, we tend to have discussions, as we have had today, about the rights and responsibilities of parents. But in her letter to the Senedd’s Education Committee chair supporting the LCM, the Children’s Commissioner for Wales highlighted the three tests her office has published in relation to children’s rights on home education. They are:

“First, that all children in Wales can be accounted for and that none are invisible. Second, that every child receives a suitable education and their other human rights, including health, care and safety. And third, that every child is seen and their views and experiences are listened to. This is essential for the first two tests to be met”.


These three tests help us to focus our attention away, slightly, from the needs and rights of parents, and to consider the needs and rights of children.

The Children’s Commissioner for Wales points out that the Welsh Government make no reference to children’s rights in their LCM and is surprised that no children’s rights impact assessment has been produced with the proposals. She said that such an impact assessment would help ensure that the Welsh Government fulfil their own duties to consider children’s rights, provide valuable transparency for key stakeholders, and assist in identifying and mitigating any unintended consequences.

I am sure that the Welsh Government will rise to the challenge and produce a children’s rights impact assessment to ensure the rights of the children of Wales, but can the Minister say whether the rights of children in England will be similarly addressed? It seems that the Bill, and Clause 31 in particular, goes a long way to ensuring that the rights of children are met in both England and Wales, but the Government need to make it clear that that is their intention.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a parent of home-educated children. I take this opportunity to echo the earlier tributes to the many home-educating families who have worked so hard over such a long period to raise their children well, which, as another Peer mentioned, the data shows. I also thank the Minister for her offer to meet Peers, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I am around in August and, if officials can meet us to discuss our concerns, I would like to join some of those discussions.

I support Amendments 202C, 227, 227A and 286, which collectively interrogate what I believe is a sweeping new framework that Clauses 31 and 34 impose. These clauses lie at the heart of the Bill’s proposals to establish this compulsory register of children not in school, and to empower local authorities to demand detailed information from parents about how and why they are educating their children outside the mainstream system.

Let us be clear: I fully accept there are very few tragic cases where parents, intent on harming or neglecting their children, have cited home education as a smokescreen. However, in pretty much every instance, the abuse was already present when the child was still enrolled in school—or, indeed, in state-run care, as has just been mentioned. To take these horrors and use them to justify a regime that treats all parents who choose to home educate as presumptively suspect is not only disproportionate but profoundly unjust. It risks creating a system that soaks up scarce safeguarding resources chasing bureaucratic compliance by good families, while truly at-risk children continue to slip through the net precisely because professionals are mired in routine paperwork.

Clause 31 in particular gives local authorities extraordinary powers. It requires the registration of any child not attending school full-time, regardless of whether there is any reason to suspect unsuitable education or harm. The data that can be demanded under this clause is extensive, including personal details, philosophical convictions, protected characteristics, information on supplementary educational providers and more, which will be held indefinitely and cross-referenced with other local records. As I mentioned at Second Reading, I totally oppose this register on principle.

Here we can see exactly the concern raised by Reclaim Rights for Children and other expert bodies, including many academics, that the proposed children not in school register requires information far beyond what is necessary. Even the Department for Education itself has conceded that simply having a child’s name, date of birth, home address and the names and home addresses of each parent should be sufficient to support the existing duties of a local authority to try to identify those children not in school and ensure they are receiving efficient, suitable education. Yet the Bill goes on to say that there may be other data that it would be helpful to capture. That is not how lawful data processing works. Under well-established principles of minimisation, personal data processing must be limited strictly to what is necessary and not exceed the purpose for which it was collected. You do not gather more than you need simply because it might be helpful.

Clause 34 compounds these concerns. It not only record facts but makes local authorities active interrogators of family choices without clear statutory boundaries. There is no real limit on what might be demanded under the vague heading of sufficient information. This invites mission creep, allowing data collected ostensibly for educational oversight to be repurposed for broader monitoring. It risks empowering officers who may be ideologically suspicious of home education to harass families, treating any non-co-operation as evidence of neglect and flipping the burden of proof entirely.

That is why I strongly support Amendment 286 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which probes how these sweeping new powers would intersect with children who have special education needs. Children with education, health and care plans or who receive Section 19 or Section 61 provision are already under a robust statutory framework. Pulling them into an additional generalist register not only duplicates bureaucracy, which does not sound very efficient to me, but risks destabilising finely balanced arrangements, often secured only after long struggle and hard evidence of need. The local authority already knows exactly what education these children are receiving; they do not need another compliance net.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

Perhaps I might build on that point. There seems to be a lot of conflation in this debate between home education and children who are missing education or invisible. It seems that all these measures are designed to try to find these invisible children. Is there not a risk, as I think the noble Lord is touching on, that we may bring in a system that does not actually find the missing children? The people who are very determined to abuse their children, or to hide them in very fundamentalist environments, are the very people who would not register their children even if we had a database. In which case, we would be going after all the people who are doing a good job in the noble Lord’s first few categories. Will the parents we actually want to get—the 39,000 or 300,000 or however many—really self-disclose? There is a real risk that we might not know this until we have imposed a huge amount of bureaucracy on all the parents who are doing a great job.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. The answer is that, at the moment, we are not doing anything, which is why the children are going missing and why we do not know where they are. We therefore need to do something to ensure that those children have the opportunity of education and are safe.

--- Later in debate ---

On the point, however, about Clause 30 and the need for consent, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Frost, meant this, but he gave the impression that every parent needs consent to home-school their child. That is not the case. The consent provisions in this legislation relate to specific children who are particularly vulnerable or are likely to have specific needs. These provisions in Clause 30 relating to consent do not prohibit flexi-schooling arrangements. However, schools should agree in those circumstances to a flexi-schooling arrangement only where the child’s parents need consent to withdraw them from school, in particularly exceptional circumstances. We will—

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is it not the case that if a determined local authority objects to home-schooling, they could start a process of investigating a family under these powers and therefore, technically, the family would be under investigation and could be refused—and all parents could theoretically be prevented from doing so?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, and we will come to that in detail. The Section 47 provision, the child protection inquiries, would require evidence of significant harm to the child. It is not the case, as we have identified, that many parents who are home-educating would get anywhere near that sort of threshold. Nor would local authorities have any incentive to do that.

These provisions do not prohibit flexi-schooling arrangements. However, schools should agree to a flexi-schooling arrangement only in exceptional circumstances. We will update guidance to make this clear. In later groups we will be talking in more detail about the provisions around the consent process.

I turn to Amendment 286 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is a probing amendment which would remove an exemption on the parental duty to provide information for registers. To be clear, the proposed exemption relates to children whose education is provided under alternative provision arrangements when special educational provision other than in schools is in place or where arrangements have been made by the proprietor of the school that the child is attending. These children may be in scope of the children not in school registers, but the local authority will already hold this information, so there is no need for a duty to provide information that rests with the parents in those cases.

Amendment 233A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, aims to push on what mandatory information local authority registers should contain. The only information required to be held on registers is that which is easily available to parents or obtainable by local authorities, and that is important for ascertaining the suitability of education and the safety of the child—such as the child’s name, their date of birth, address and details of education provided by the parent and others. We will talk on later groups about the way in which that information should be provided and the ease with which I hope it can be provided.

I turn now to Amendment 279, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash, who made a strong case for the provisions in this legislation. His amendment aims to give local authorities the right to inspect the educational materials used by home educators and to view work that that child produces. Local authorities must consider a range of factors when assessing the suitability of a child’s education. One example of how they may conduct their inquiries into suitability is to request evidence of work samples. This position was confirmed in the Portsmouth judicial review case in 2021. If the local authority is not satisfied that the education is suitable based on the information received, it must usually serve a school attendance order, which requires the child to be enrolled at a school.

I turn to the Clause 31 stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope the noble Lord was satisfied by my first speech on this group but, to summarise succinctly, we need an effective registration system so that local authorities can identify all children not in school and ensure that they are receiving suitable education and are safe. This is what Clause 31 will achieve.

The stand part notice tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to remove Clause 34 from the Bill. Clause 34 allows for statutory guidance to be provided to local authorities on how they should carry out their new duties in relation to the school attendance order process and children not in school registers. This guidance will provide local authorities with advice on how to exercise their new powers and responsibilities proportionately and consistently. For example, we would expect it to include further advice on how local authorities should request and conduct home visits.

As part of the implementation of the Bill, we will consult on the guidance to ensure that we hear from stakeholders that the measures will have an impact. It is necessary that the guidance is statutory to help ensure compliance with the advice within it. There will be considerable opportunity for further engagement on the details of that; the House will have the opportunity to consider it, because it will be subject to the affirmative resolution process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made points on why all children need to be included on registers. To reiterate, we agree that home education is not in itself a safeguarding risk, but it can mean that children slip under the radar of the services that are there to protect them. Our consent measures are a proportionate solution which, as I have said, focuses on the small but important group of children for whom there are concerns about actual or likely significant harm. We will further discuss these issues later. The registers are about helping local authorities to discharge their existing duties to ensure that children are receiving a safe and suitable education.

Finally, with respect to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, about the child rights impact and the relationship with Wales, there is, to be clear, a child rights impact assessment produced by the Government for this piece of legislation, but Wales wanted to produce its own. That is the reason for the situation that the noble Baroness outlined.

For the reasons that I have outlined, and given the extensive discussions we have had as a forerunner for the further discussions that we will have, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments or stand part notices.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wei]

203A: Clause 30, page 51, leave out lines 2 to 23 and insert—
“(c) a local authority is—(i) conducting enquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (duty to investigate) in respect of the child, or (ii) taking action under section 47(8) of that Act to safeguard or promote the child's welfare, in a case where the enquiries mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) 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 that Act).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment limits consent requirements to safeguarding cases under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. It removes subsection (3) of 434A, recognising special school placement as supportive, not suspicious, and ensures local authorities must evidence actual harm risk, rather than requiring parents to justify withdrawal.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 203A and Amendment 215A, and to give moral support to Amendment 221. Before turning to these provisions, I wish to reflect briefly on the underlying scope and purpose of Clause 30.

Clause 30 as drafted is striking in its breadth. It hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn from a maintained school. I pick up here on a point made previously by the Minister about whether all parents could be subject to this. My assertion is that they could if a local authority decided, on the withdrawal of the child from school, to put the parent under a Section 47 order. Apparently, this is incredibly easy to do. The law requires only reasonable cause to suspect significant harm. It is a deliberately low bar, meant to protect children, and I have had correspondence—we can discuss this again in August—that indicates that it has at times been misused, just through a referral, for example, from the school itself. Let us say that a teacher does not really understand home education, is concerned that withdrawal might cause harm and alerts the local authority. Instantly, it can start an investigation. As an officer, you run that by your manager, who is busy—partly, perhaps, because there are many more families to investigate now that that the database exists. Perhaps there was a missed medical appointment, which I am sure we have all experienced, and they were late and could not see the doctor in time, perhaps because there was traffic. Suddenly, that might give rise to an S47. Although in theory, under the clause, only a certain subset of parents may be affected, potentially, in practice, depending on the ideological bias of the officers involved—and we have seen in some authorities that there clearly are some outliers—all parents may be swept into such measures.

Clause 30 as drafted hands local authorities the power to demand consent before a child may be withdrawn, yet nowhere does it properly limit the grounds on which that consent may be withheld. This gives the state a sweeping veto over parents’ decisions to withdraw their children, even when such withdrawal arises from urgent, pressing circumstances such as sustained bullying or grooming—I believe that you can be subject to an S47 if you are being groomed in a school—unmet special educational needs or serious mental health concerns. In doing so, it risks turning what should be a family’s protective step—for example, taking your child out of that circumstance of grooming by bullies in school—into a procedural trap.

This is a significant expansion of state power into private family life. It runs counter the well-established principle, under both domestic common law and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that parents are presumed to act in their children’s best interests unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. By casting such a wide net without rigorous statutory safeguards, Clause 30 risks inviting inconsistency, arbitrary refusals and unnecessary confrontations that erode trust between families and local authorities. It is precisely this sort of overreach that sows the seed of future litigation and damages the co-operative spirit that effective safeguarding truly depends on.

Against that backdrop, Amendment 215 offers a much more balanced and constructive approach and, dare I say it, safeguard. It would require local authorities to offer parents a voluntary information session before they formally deregister a child to home educate. This session would do three modest but crucial things: provide an exploration of the parents’ legal rights and responsibilities, give details of what support services might be available, and lay out clearly what the process and consequences of withdrawal would entail.

This is not a barrier, a checkpoint or a covert mechanism for delay; it is simply an offer of information. It is a means to ensure that parents contemplating such a significant step—as we have heard, many more do so these days—do so with a full understanding of the legal and practical landscape, and it respects their right to choose while empowering them to make that choice wisely.

The decision to home-educate is rarely casual; many parents arrive at it after considerable distress. We have heard accounts from across England of children so overwhelmed by school that they stop speaking, suffer debilitating anxiety or face persistent exclusion. In such cases, parents often withdraw a child in a crisis, being understandably focused on immediate well-being rather than long-term procedural consequences. Those parents deserve our empathy, not our suspicion.

This amendment is rooted in sound constitutional principle. In R (Anufrijeva) v Secretary of State for the Home Department the law is clear. Procedural fairness is a cornerstone of our system requiring timely, clear information when rights are at stake. This is precisely what Amendment 215A would achieve, ensuring that parents understand their freedoms and obligations.

It is not an abstract problem. In evidence we have repeatedly heard of parents who did not fully appreciate the impact of deregistration. Some assumed that they could simply return their child to school at any time. Others did not realise the additional hurdles for exam access or the financial implications once local authority funding fell away. One parent who wrote in from the West Midlands said starkly, “We thought we’d just get on with it, but suddenly we were isolated. No support, no guidance and a local authority more interested in interrogating us than helping”. Another told us, “No one warned us about exam costs. If we’d known, we would have budgeted and planned differently”.

This amendment also helps to address the troubling postcode lottery that currently characterises local authority engagement. Some councils build relationships with home-educating families, others issue notices to satisfy and school attendance orders at extraordinary rates. In Portsmouth, for instance, in one recent year nearly three-quarters of all known home-educating families were issued a notice. That is not a safeguarding approach grounded in individual assessment; it is a blunt instrument that breeds fear and resentment.

Offering a voluntary information session helps to shift this climate. It replaces adversarial compliance checks with constructive engagement. It gives parents confidence that they understand their rights, that they are under no obligation to accept invasive home visits, and that they can approach home education in a spirit of informed partnership rather than fearful retreat. It is essential that this remains voluntary. To compel attendance would simply re-create the coercive environment that we seek to avoid. Some parents may never need further help; others may seek guidance. This gentle first step ensures that they start that journey from a place of respect and understanding.

Finally, I want us to remember the positive role that schools themselves can play. Head teachers are often the first to hear of a family’s intention to deregister. With this amendment in place, they would have somewhere helpful to direct parents to—not as a hurdle but as a supportive opportunity to become better informed.

In sum, this is precisely the kind of proportionate, relationship-based approach we should be championing, respecting parental authority, ensuring clarity of obligation, building trust and ultimately safeguarding children far more effectively than heavy-handed procedural entanglements could ever do. If in August we can perhaps implement more changes such as this, we may need fewer tribunals, although I agree they are a very important measure, and we may need fewer databases because parents and local authorities are working together in co-operation. I beg to move.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said at Second Reading and repeated earlier this afternoon, it is my contention on behalf of home-schooling parents that the provisions in this Bill are

“too long and too complicated”.—[Official Report, 1/5/25; col. 1414.]

To that end, I have given notice that I will oppose the Question that Clause 30 stand part of the Bill. I also put down Amendment 233A relating to Clause 31.

Perhaps we could look at the whole. I have argued against the long and complicated provisions in this Bill relating to home-schooling parents because they are frightfully oppressive on home-schooling parents and are in many ways unworkable because of the complicated language used in this Bill.

To look at it as a whole, the home-schooling provisions in the Bill are covered in Clauses 30 to 33. They cover 29 pages, from page 50 to page 79 of the Bill, and the clauses therein contain 17 very large new sections to be inserted after Sections 434 and 436 of the Education Act 1996. So the further complication is that not only do you need to have in your hands this Bill, or Act when it is passed, but you have to go back to the 1996 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The children who are subject to child protection inquiries and plans are among our most vulnerable and the children who attend special schools are likely to have the highest levels of need. It is necessary that local authority consent is sought in those scenarios to ensure that these children are safe and suitably educated.

Even then, Clause 30 does not mean that these eligible families will not be able to home-educate their children. We are simply requiring the local authority to take a closer look in those circumstances. It may, in any of those three categories, be wholly appropriate for those children to be educated at home, but it is also right, given the specific circumstances, that the local authority that has responsibility—or where those children live—looks at that case and gives consent for home education in those narrow categories of cases.

We want local authorities to know which children in their areas may be home-educated and to make an informed decision to determine what will be in the best interests of the child in those circumstances. Clause 30 is underpinned by a review process; I will return to that in a moment. Statutory guidance will also be published to help schools and local authorities to carry out their new duties consistently from authority to authority and in a proportionate way.

I turn to the specific amendments. Amendments 203A and 204, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wei and Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for parents to obtain local authority consent to home-educate should their child attend a special school under arrangements of the local authority. The Government believe it is important to retain this requirement. We totally recognise that parents of children at special schools have their children’s best interests at heart, just like other parents. However, children in special schools often have very complex needs that would be difficult for their parents to provide for at home. The loss of the support the child receives in a special school may be a major upheaval in the child’s life. Clause 30 retains an additional check that there are no educational suitability issues resulting from the loss of this support and that home education would be in the child’s best interests. It is clear that this is a different nature of concern from that represented by Section 47 inquiries or a child protection plan.

Amendment 210, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to specify a timeframe for the home education consent decision to be made. I wholly share the noble Lord’s desire for decisions to be undertaken as quickly as possible. We think that the current wording in the clause, “without undue delay”, ensures as prompt a turnaround as possible. If we had an arbitrary timeline for this process—28 days, for example—that would imply that every decision was as straightforward as any other. Timings are likely to be different, depending on the circumstances of the child. By necessity, because these are children who already have other needs and requirements, the process could be complex and will involve multi-agency collaboration and information-sharing to reach a decision.

Amendment 215A seeks to ensure that local authorities offer parents an information session on home education as part of the consent process. I agree it is important that the decision to home-educate is an informed one. But the duty to secure a suitable education rests with the parent, not the local authority. With this in mind, requiring local authorities to offer mandatory information sessions would not be appropriate. It is parents who should be taking responsibility for researching their educational choices. Parents should carefully consider their responsibilities and the financial implications of home-educating before requesting permission to withdraw their child from school. We will ensure that the department’s relevant guidance provides key information that a parent needs to consider when contemplating whether to home-educate. Local authorities and schools can signpost to this should they become aware of parental intentions to home-educate.

Amendment 219, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require local authorities to provide a statement of reasons to parents when refusing a request for consent. As the noble Baroness suspected, it is the case that local authorities are already obliged to provide their rationale for such a decision. We intend to make this clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them.

Finally, Amendment 221, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, looks to provide a tribunal appeals process as a review in the case of a local authority’s decision to refuse to grant permission to home-educate a child. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary because Clause 30 already provides for a review process. Parents who disagree with the local authority’s decision to grant or refuse permission to home-educate their child can refer the decision to the Secretary of State for review. They will carefully consider the full facts of the case. Having done so, the Secretary of State has the power to either uphold the local authority’s decision, to direct the local authority to grant consent or to refer the question back to the local authority for review.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I believe that this appeal process to the Secretary of State already exists. Clearly, it is a very difficult situation for the Secretary of State to be the tribunal for the parents, if the parents feel that the local authority or the Government have not been supportive of their desire to home-educate. I would be grateful if the Minister could let us know how many times, when a home-educated family has requested support from the Secretary of State to overturn a local authority decision, that has actually happened. According to the statistics I have, there has never been such an instance. I wonder whether, if this were to be tested in a court or by some other mechanism, this form of procedural appeal would not really muster the kind of belief that the Minister has. Might she reconsider looking into the various forms of appeal that we will propose in later groups of amendments, or indeed look again at the idea of a tribunal?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This legislation introduces the consent process. People have not gone through this process, with the specific, narrow categories of children and families for whom it applies. Does the noble Lord want another go?

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am referring to other instances, which home-educated families have referenced, where they have written to the Secretary of State for Education —under the current regime, not the future one—and where no action has ever been taken in their favour. Perhaps we can discuss this in August.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let us not talk about what will happen and when in terms of engagement with my officials. Just to be clear: as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that engagement will enable noble Lords to get an understanding of the way the Government intend to implement these provisions and to get some assurance around the processes that will be used. It will not be another opportunity for noble Lords who fundamentally oppose what the Government are doing—I am thinking of the noble Lord, who started his contribution by saying that he fundamentally opposes what we are trying to do here. I am not sure that the engagement will be particularly helpful for persuading, through officials, the Government to wholly change their approach to this. As I said, it is intended to look at the detail and to provide some assurance about how the processes will work.

I will reiterate the point I made previously. Clause 30 is introducing a consent mechanism and, specifically, a review process of that consent mechanism. Home-educating parents may well have written on other issues to the Secretary of State and been dissatisfied with the response that they received. However, that is different from the review process that is spelled out in legislation in Clause 30.

I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Morris. She is right. She asks questions that are the subject of amendments to be debated in later groups, but they are very reasonable. She asked about how much time a child would need to study with a provider for it to be reported, and how often and how quickly parents would need to update the details about that. Those are precisely the types of issues that would be subject to the further consultation around the regulations and guidance, including with home-educating parents and others, to ensure that we do that in a way that balances the burdens and requirements on parents, alongside ensuring that the local authority has the basic information that it needs to make the scheme work properly. In this area, there is considerable scope for consultation and engagement about how precisely that will work. I hope that answers my noble friend’s question and that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for what she said. I entirely understand the limitations of discussions with officials, which is why I want to talk to her again about tribunals. Tribunals are an established part of mediating between the citizen and the state. In situations like this, or in many circumstances similar to those we are talking about—and this is by no means the only time we will discuss this; the next time will be when we are talking about best interests—when you have a hard-pressed local authority that may have a particular prejudice against home education and may be making life extremely difficult, as some of them do, you want an effective right of appeal. The system of appeal to the Secretary of State has existed in various forms in various bits of legislation for a long time. I am aware of one occasion when the Secretary of State agreed with the complainant. It does not work as an effective forum. It is not set up to be an effective forum. It does not allow for balanced and deep argument. The department is just not set up as a tribunal: it is not staffed as a tribunal, nor skilled as a tribunal. It is not the right place. I just say to my noble friend Lady Barran that I would very much appreciate her support for a tribunal amendment at Report, because that is what this appears likely to come to.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

We have heard in discussing this group of amendments a number of excellent suggestions for trying to take the edge off these complex—as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said—and, in my view, quite heavy-handed requirements on families. On the previous group, the Minister was very kind in offering discussions so that we can move forwards. Even though I have said that I oppose the register totally, that does not mean that I am shirking my responsibility as a legislator to help improve this legislation and to make it practical, based on the experience of someone from a home-educating family and having heard what was said by many Peers who have contributed to the debate. We are trying to make this practical and to make it work, so that people can get on with educating their children and local authorities can catch the perpetrators they want to catch.

There have been discussions about the tribunal, appeals and the fact that the department’s appeals process generally does not seem to behave in the way you would expect of a proper appeals process when parents complain directly. We have heard some quite sensible amendments in this group and the Minister has not indicated that she is willing to adopt any of the ideas in them. We will see later on. We appreciate the clarification that, when we meet officials, we will be told what the Bill is about and why it has been written in this way, but I hope we can also improve the Bill, which is the intent of us all. There have been suggestions on ways to improve its wording, in order to treat children in special schools and their parents with a bit more care and to have a statement of costs and benefits. These do not seem unreasonable.

I am afraid I am hearing a bit of a “state knows best” argument—that it should have 28 days to give a reason for its decision whereas parents should have only 15. That does not sound very fair to me and I am not sure it will sound fair to the British public, let alone to home-educating families. However, in the interests of time and given that we will discuss in further groups and potentially over the summer more of what we have talked about today, I will reflect on what has been said. I may return to this on Report but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 203A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 224, which I think is less contentious than the last issue that I raised in your Lordships’ House. The amendment is about deregistration from school when it is triggered by crises, or whatever. Taking your child to school is a voluntary arrangement at the point of enrolment, but parents get fined for unauthorised absence, even if they go into the sort of crisis that will eventually lead to them deregistering.

I do not know anything about education, despite being in education until I was 18, and then at university, but I have vested interest because three of my grandchildren were home-schooled. Two of them are now at Cambridge—one is doing history and the other politics—and the other one has made a comedy film about autism, which is a condition she has, and that is doing incredibly well. Those three children have been home-schooled and have reached a level that many children do not get to regardless, so I would argue that home-schooling can work extremely well. It is important to remember that, for some children, it is the answer. We want to avoid government overreach in these situations.

It seems obvious to me that, where a parent clearly no longer consents to the education arrangement with the school, it makes sense that they do not get fined. The fines do not get the children back to school, but they do add financial worries to the sense of stress. I understand why the Government reach for deterrence in order to give children the best education that they can, but sometimes school is not the right answer and I ask the Minister to consider whether financial penalties are useful in all these situations.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords I rise to speak to my Amendments 218, 223, 381, 403 and 418. Together, they seek to introduce fairness, balance and accountability into the Bill and to support families who are simply choosing a lawful, legitimate path of home education.

I will first focus on Amendment 218, which will require any local authority officer making decisions about elective home education to have at least two years’ personal experience of home educating their own children. This is not an ideological proposal but a practical one. I recall being asked once by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to help create a Teach First programme for social workers. I declined, not because I doubted the value of new graduates but because lived experience matters. Pattern recognition, nuance and trust are not easily taught, especially if you have only recently graduated. You cannot understand the reality of raising and educating a child outside school unless you have walked that path yourself.

To ask someone with no such experience to judge a family’s educational approach is like asking a man to speak with authority on childbirth or someone without children to dictate how others should raise theirs. According to Education Otherwise, home-educated children are twice as likely to be referred to children’s social services as their schooled peers, and yet no more likely to be placed on a child protection plan. This points to systematic overreferral, driven in part by ignorance and in part by a narrative that wrongly associates home education with safeguarding risk. This amendment offers one step towards correcting that imbalance.

Case law supports this. In R (T) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester 2014, the Supreme Court held that administrative decisions that infringe individual rights must be informed by proper context and not rely on rigid or generic assumptions. Without understanding the diversity and nuance of home education, decisions risk being fundamentally flawed. If flawed decisions are made persistently, structurally and without oversight, judicial review becomes not just possible but likely. My concern is that the Bill, without this amendment and others like it, will open floodgates to such challenges, and perhaps rightly so.

This brings me to Amendment 223, which would establish an independent home education ombudsman—somewhat similar to the tribunal idea but very focused—to receive and investigate complaints against local authorities that overstep in the course of carrying out their duties under the Education Act. This is frankly overdue. At present, if a parent believes that they have been mistreated, there is no meaningful avenue of redress: no independent appeal, no clear complaints process and no statutory body to oversee how these immense powers are exercised. All they can do, as we have discussed, is write to the Minister, who to our knowledge has never, or rarely, upheld a complaint by a parent in this or a similar context.

I will give noble Lords some testimonies to bring this to life here. We have talked about the legal process here, but I want to bring home how human lives are affected by what we are proposing and what already takes place. One mother, a non-UK national, withdrew her child from the UK system before school age, having mistakenly registered with the local authority on school advice. Despite their lawful departure, the LA demanded boarding passes, proof of address and school details abroad. The child was never of school age in the UK. This was not protection; it was pursuit.

A military family has described how their local authority contacted the husband’s workplace repeatedly to discuss the children, even after it had ruled that the home education was of a satisfactory, suitable level. It then had to make an apology and had clear instruction to contact only the mother. The mother said this was a huge breach of privacy because of the nature of the agreement they had established. A home-educating doctor wrote:

“After de-registering my daughter with SEND, I was referred to social services again. My son and I were followed in public. I feared for our safety. My daughter began to regress. I had done nothing wrong—just removed her from a school that failed her”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

To clarify, I was in no way saying that men could not work with women in childbirth. I was trying to make a point about speaking as authoritatively on the process of giving birth as a man as if you were a woman. In no way would I want the Minister to interpret me as saying that one could not be a male midwife or anything like that, but, as some of us know, when in certain circles I have talked about something feeling like childbirth, I have quite rightly been told off, because I have never given birth. There is something about that lived experience that I am pointing to. I am not making the point that people cannot work in certain professional settings in that sense.

We are crossing over from professional expertise into lived experience, saying that a parent can or cannot raise their child and parent-educate. Even if you were to use the professional argument, I am not sure that having that determined by someone who may not have that experience—when, right now, even the professional in this context is not trained in the philosophies and the different nuances of home education—is quite right in this context.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I certainly think it is right that we should attempt to ensure that people with lived experience are a key part of all areas of policy. That is why, for example, I talked earlier about the home educators’ forum that the department has brought together to help to inform our work here and the guidance. The point that the noble Lord was making went well beyond that. The suggestion that you could not make a professional social work or education decision in this area unless you had lived experience would make this area wholly different from any other area that professionals were making decisions about, and that is the stumbling block for this amendment.

We have a workforce of trained, dedicated practitioners who understand and champion the needs of the children they work with across schools and children’s social care. These amendments, in effect, would exclude around 99% of the population and, of course, would assume that one professional’s experience of home education is reflective of all parents. Working Together guidance is clear which practitioners should be involved in safeguarding decision-making and the importance of including children and families in that as well. We are confident that the Bill measures, and wider children’s social care reform that strengthens the protection of children, will mean that local authorities can draw on a range of expertise when making decisions—and so they should.

Amendment 220 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 224 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would allow a child not to attend school prior to receiving consent from the local authority. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who was not here for the earlier parts of the debate—for which I do not condemn her—that the points she made about the very successful home education experience of the children she was talking about who are close to her has very much been reflected in the comments that other noble Lords made earlier. We are clear that there are many children for whom home education has been a very fulfilling and successful process, and there is nothing in this legislation that removes, for example, the right of parents to make that decision to educate their children at home.

With these consent provisions, however—and in wanting to ensure that if a child is being educated at home, they are at least seen and understood to be being educated elsewhere than in school—we want to make sure that every child is seen. That is the expression that we were using earlier, and that is what we are aiming to do here. Also with respect to the consent provisions, we are concerned about those children for whom there might be particular reasons for a local authority to look carefully at the decision to grant consent by virtue of them being subject to a Section 47 inquiry, under a child protection plan or requiring the specific facilities of a special school.

For many children, a school is a protective environment and a means of offering essential support. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness share our desire to reduce the risk of children falling through gaps and potentially going missing. It is therefore important that a child continues to attend school until a local authority has determined the consent request. Removing a child before this could subject them to unsuitable education or increase the risk of harm. I am sure that the noble Baroness could envisage a situation where, for legitimate reasons, a Section 47 inquiry is instituted where there are concerns about a child being at risk of very significant harm and—I am afraid that we have seen examples of this—a parent, thinking that this would be a way of avoiding it, decides at that point that they want to remove their child from school. In those circumstances, I do not think that any of us would want that child to be removed from what may well be the protective environment of a school before the decision had been made about consent.

For all children who are not subject to the consent process, which will be the vast majority of children whose parents want to home-educate them, all we are expecting is that the parent notifies the school that they want to remove their child from the roll and that the school has the opportunity to check, therefore, whether they fall within the criteria of a child for whom consent would be necessary or whether they are subject to a school attendance order. It would not be unreasonable to expect a child to carry on attending school while that relatively straightforward administrative check was made.

Amendment 222, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require consent decisions to be revisited sooner than six months after the previous request when new evidence becomes available or the child has been disadvantaged by the decision. This six-month timeframe is proportionate and is provided to reduce multiple requests regarding the same child. There will be situations where it may be appropriate for the local authority to consider applications sooner—for example, if there has been a substantial change in the child’s circumstances. A local authority can do this under the clause as drafted, if it so wishes. I am sure that the noble Lord could also envisage a situation where a parent who was unhappy about the consent decision made by a local authority expected the decision to be revisited perhaps every week. That is the reason for setting this timeframe.

Amendment 223 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is about establishing an independent ombudsman. I understand the theme that is developing here about independent review capacity. Notwithstanding that, the Government do not believe that it is necessary. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, uses almost every opportunity to push his tribunal suggestion. I am interested in whether the proposition now is that we should have both a tribunal and an ombudsman in these cases. Of course it is right that there should be a process for referring local authority decisions that parents are not satisfied with; however, it should be uncomplicated. It is right that the final decision should rest with the Secretary of State, or Welsh Ministers, who will fully and objectively consider the merits of the case.

Amendment 225, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the definition of the “relevant local authority” that is responsible for making a home education consent decision. For children subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, the local authority where a child lives is responsible for making the consent decision. They will have the information needed to make informed decisions and should therefore determine consent. For children in special schools, who are not also subject to child protection processes, consent is needed from the local authority that maintains the plan, just as is the case under existing legislation. This new subsection provides legal clarity for parents, schools and local authorities.

Amendment 403, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, requests emergency court hearings for parents where a local authority seeks to remove, or removes, a child from their parents due to concerns arising from home education. To reiterate, the Children Act 1989 is clear that the threshold for care proceedings is significant harm. Home education as a singular factor would not reach the threshold for care proceedings. Child protection concerns about a home-educated child must be addressed through the same process as any other child facing harm. This includes parents’ rights to challenge decisions about the removal of a child into care.

Finally, Amendment 418, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to refer individuals who file false or malicious allegations against home-educating parents, who then may be subject to civil penalties. There is a concern that this could deter valid concerns about home-educated children being reported, potentially leaving children at risk. Local authorities have robust processes in place to identify whether a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, harm and appropriately respond to malicious allegations, regardless of a child’s educational status.

I said earlier that it would not only be in the case of home-educated children that a local authority might have to make a decision about whether a complaint about a child’s parents was well founded or malicious. Home-educating parents have the same rights as other parents. Families can seek support from the local authority or police advice if intentional false reports are being made against them.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I have similar doubts and concerns about Amendment 211—or rather the problem it is designed to deal with—to my noble friend Lord Lucas. To elaborate, the principle that parents have the primary responsibility to provide education for children has been in statutes of various forms for the best part of 150 years and is currently in Section 7 of the 1996 Act. There is a qualification to that, for reasons of cost and efficiency, but no qualification for anything else. My noble friend Lord Lucas is right to say that this is the first time we have seen this very important principle qualified. The fact that it is done almost in passing and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, in a bit of a muddle, makes one wonder how much thought has been given to this, and whether indeed the intention is to go back on this very long-standing principle or not. It does not seem to have been very clearly thought through.

At the moment, we have a provision that says that local authorities “must refuse consent” to the subset of children who are caught by these new provisions if they think that home education is not in the best interests of those children. That is most egregious for children in special educational schools but also for the Section 47 part of the definition, which, as we have been discussing, potentially has quite a low threshold.

My questions to the Minister are these. Is it intended with this provision to overturn that very long-standing principle? If it is not, can she explain why it is not and why this draft does not do that? Is it worth thinking a bit harder about the drafting of this section and, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, substituting some sort of objective positive test rather than this very broad and novel “best interests” test?

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 212 and the related amendment to Clause 30. Taken together, these amendments aim to restore vital balance and proportion to the question of whether a parent may withdraw their child from school. They would place evidence, not mere suspicion, at the heart of decisions to profoundly shape children’s lives, reaffirming that it is parents who are the primary guardians of their child’s welfare, unless proven otherwise.

As others have mentioned, Amendment 212 addresses the critical flaw in the Bill: trapping children in harmful environments by allowing local authorities to withhold consent for withdrawal without first producing clear, documented evidence of a standard sufficient to satisfy courts that such a withdrawal would cause greater harm. This is not some radical departure; it simply restates the core principle of the Children Act 1989 that the welfare of the child and the authority of the parents to act in their child’s best interest must be paramount.

From the groups that we have discussed so far, one of the concerns I have is that although we must recognise the sterling efforts of local authority officials, the department and the Minister, we must not always presume that in every case the state knows best. Mistakes are made, and from what I have heard so far I am worried that there is no real consciousness that there could be mistakes that would warrant either a tribunal or an ombudsman, and, in this case, no recognition that schools can potentially be a cause of harm as well—for example, if children are being groomed or exploited at school. Why is there this presumption that the parent must prove to the official that the alternative to school that they are about to provide will be safer, when in some cases they may be trying to get their child out of a harmful environment—for example, that particular school?

This is a real issue. Scandals we have had in the past. Horizon, and even Rotherham—if I dare to mention that in this place—were based on the assumption that the state clearly understands what is going on and is not making any mistakes, that nobody is overlooking anything, and that the state is wise and therefore everything it does is right and cannot be challenged, except when we find out years later that there have been mistakes and problems. The amendments that many of us are proposing are trying—certainly I am with this one and others—to address that assumption and create some safeguards.

The related, equally essential amendment to Clause 30 rightly distinguishes between the mere existence of a Section 47 investigation and its actual outcome. It seeks to ensure that local authorities may refuse consent only if their inquiries under Section 47 have led them to conclude that the child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

I want to echo similar points made by others in this group that there is a real troubling shift towards the state deciding what is in the best interest of the child, based not on neglect or the criteria that we have relied on in the past for state intervention but on deciding what is in the best interest of the child educationally and holistically. How can this possibly be justified?

Even with Section 47, we are talking about suspicion as the threshold, so we may have this running debate which we may need to resolve when we sit down with officials. I have documented proof—real testimony—of officials who are suspicious, not recognising that there is harm being done in school to a child, of parents who want to home-educate. They say that the parents are going to harm the child, using cases such as the Sharif case and others to justify this intervention. This has caused officials to behave in ways that put them in a position of extreme power, without any protections or appeals.

The state should override parental rights only when there is evidence of significant harm, not because the state believes that it has a better view of what is in the best interest of the child over the parent. In re B (A Child) 2009, the Supreme Court was unequivocal. As Lord Kerr memorably put it, the state does not become the parent. It is justified in interfering only where a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. That is the litmus test.

For many families this is not theoretical; it is painfully real. I have been sent countless accounts, too often dismissed as anecdotal, of children enduring conditions in school that no safeguarding regime should tolerate. The 2021 Ofsted review on sexual harassment found that many girls routinely experience peer sexual abuse in school. The Women and Equalities Committee has documented similar risks. Children with autism, sensory processing difficulties and anxiety disorders frequently find the mainstream classroom overwhelming, not through any failing by parents but through systemic failure.

One mother recounted that her autistic child’s school-triggered anxiety caused seizures three to four times a week, which dropped to once every six months after she was withdrawn. Another spoke of her son vomiting every morning, paralysed by dread. Yet another mother described home education as not a lifestyle choice but “a safety net that saved my child’s life”. A 2023 study in the British Medical Journal found that adolescent mental health measurably improves during school holidays and worsens during school term time. This is not mere coincidence but evidence that for some children, school environments simply do not work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

To build on that, if you had a local authority officer with not much experience of home education—given that that is apparently not available—who is shown suitable education arrangements by the parent planning to take their child into home education, then that first new sub-paragraph could allow them still to override those arrangements, which they have agreed are suitable, by saying that they think it would be best if the child attended a school. How do we deal with that precise situation which she has said could happen? Do we not need to work this out so that our wonderful local authority officials are not confused when reading this guidance and say, “Well, I can still override the parents because I think it is right that they stay in school, because that is in their best interests”?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That is what I was saying. You could envisage circumstances in which there is a child on a child protection plan, notwithstanding that there might be suitable education, where the protective role of being in school would be in that child’s best interests and being away from the school might be against them, regardless of what the other education provision might be. Let us not forget that this would be a consideration only for children for whom there are child protection concerns or for children in special schools, where, to be fair, it would more likely be about the appropriateness of the education, but could be about the other support available for a child that would not be available in other circumstances, notwithstanding the question of education, because of their needs that required them to be put into the special school in the first place.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I can fully appreciate that, given the scope here, if there was a safeguarding concern then one might want to pursue the route the Minister is talking about as the officer in question is trying to make that decision. However, the way that this is worded, even if the parents or family subject to Section 47 have found a way to provide suitable education, gives the officer the room to say, “I am concerned about the safety of the child”, when it is more that they do not like the education being provided.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think I might speak for others in the Committee in saying that this level of detail could be better dealt with face to face with officials, which would allow us to do another group before the House rises.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wei]

230: Clause 31, page 54, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A child is not required to be registered under this section if the parent provides evidence that any one of the following conditions is met—(a) a competent home educator with at least five years of personal or professional experience has provided a sworn affidavit affirming that, in their judgment, the parent will be capable of providing a suitable education consistent with their educational philosophy,(b) the parent has arranged and paid for the child to sit at least three externally assessed national qualifications, including but not limited to GCSEs, A-Levels, or accredited vocational awards, or(c) the child is enrolled with a national online school or flexible provision provider known to support home-educated or otherwise educated children to a suitable standard.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Wei exempt families from registration and data submission requirements where they can show credible evidence of suitable education through endorsement by an experienced educator, formal qualification entry, or enrolment in a recognised online provider.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 230, 254, 323 to 326 and 423, all of which stand in my name. The creation of a register, though flawed, is fundamentally intended to identify children and families who have yet to demonstrate they are providing a suitable education through home education or otherwise. It stands to reason, therefore, that those who have already demonstrated this suitability or who have mitigating circumstances preventing them doing so at this time, such as being in crisis, seeking asylum, holding diplomatic status or navigating a legitimate and complex personal or family situation, should not be treated identically to those where safeguarding concerns may genuinely arise.

There ought to be legitimate exemptions. These amendments start to aim to highlight such families, to give space to children who can show for themselves or through others that they are receiving a suitable education and that their parents are competent, committed and responsible, free from unnecessary state interference. These amendments deal with a wide range of contexts, but they all converge on a single point: not every child outside school is invisible, unsafe or neglected. Many are thriving, and the law must recognise that.

Amendment 230 is central to this group. It proposes that where credible evidence of suitable education already exists, families should not be compelled to register with the local authority. This could be demonstrated, according to the amendment, in three ways: first, through an affidavit from an experienced home educator, perhaps one who has seen their own children succeed in life and academically; secondly, through enrolment and payment for formal qualifications, such as GCSEs, for which I think the going rate is currently several hundred pounds; or, thirdly, through enrolment with an established online provider. It should be noted that the fastest-growing sector within education in the country is online virtual schooling. Indeed, the Government have their own Oak National Academy. These are not mere technicalities. They are serious, objective indicators that a child’s education is suitable. For those not taking home education seriously, they could be a suitable deterrent as well.

The state routinely accepts this kind of evidentiary substitution. The DVLA accepts a GP’s opinion for driving fitness. The Home Office accepts identity attestation from religious leaders. I think it is all digital now, but many of us have had our passport photos signed, and I think you still can get them signed, by a vicar or someone else of standing in the community. The courts accept third-party expert testimony in mental health cases. In GDPR, controllers are not required to collect identifying data if it is not needed. Why should education be the one domain where all such trust is withdrawn?

Case law supports this principle. In R v Secretary of State for Education ex parte Talmud Torah, the court affirmed that where parents choose an alternative but suitable method of education, the state must respect it. In Campbell and Cosans v UK, the European court held that education must respect parents’ philosophical convictions. A blanket requirement for registration, regardless of evidence or circumstance, may fall foul of that very principle. Not every religious school or environment is raising terrorists. Many of them are producing Nobel Prize winners, children who are totally blitzing every GCSE, children who are rounded and full of confidence.

A mother in rural England wrote: “I have taught three children from home, all of whom are now gainfully employed, emotionally stable and engaged in their communities. We have done this without needing state validation or supervision. If I now had to register and justify my choices retrospectively, it would feel like rewriting our family history through the lens of suspicion”.

This amendment makes clear that oversight should not be triggered where provision is already evidenced and functional. It reflects principles long recognised in other fields that where the state’s goals, be they safety, quality or accountability, are already being met, it need not intervene further.

I just want to share one testimony that I have been sent. One parent with qualified teacher status, who taught in state schools for over 12 years before home-educating, argued that the register was so vague that it risked turning families such as hers into scapegoats for failures that have nothing to do with home education. Another mother, a primary teacher of 15 years now teaching her own children, warned that repeated oversight by less experienced officials would be disproportionate and likely to be carried out by people who have no understanding of what is going on. I have one more: parents have been reported being referred to social services simply because their children were home-educated, despite data showing that home-educated children are less likely to end up on a child protection plan. One said that choosing to educate outside the system was in itself seen as neglect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I find myself roughly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this one: a register should be there.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I want to clarify that, while I personally oppose the register totally, if there must be a register, I am proposing practical amendments. I believe the numbers shared earlier today were that the Government are going to have to get local authority officials to deal with more than 100,000 home-educating families. If they all have to be registered and a portion of them lead to various determinations and investigations, this will create a massive workload for already stretched local authority officers, who we know are struggling to catch the children we want to protect. My point in tabling these amendments is to create exemptions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for the clarification that he has just made, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for a very clear explanation of why she is not supporting these amendments. As a former lead member for children’s services for the second-largest metropolitan authority in the country, I find it very difficult to recognise some of the comments that have been made tonight, and I emphasise the dedication and hard work of so many people whose primary, indeed sole objective is to make sure that all children in this country are safe from harm. It is so important to reference that as we go through.

I am not sure how many more times Ministers need to stress that there is total recognition of how many parents are out there working extremely hard to provide a suitable education when educating their children otherwise than at school. We have heard examples of the successes of so many of them, and we recognise that many of those children are thriving.

I emphasise that parents have no reason to fear the prospect of having to include key information on local authority children not in school registers. This information is vital to help local authorities discharge existing responsibilities and ensure that the education children receive is suitable and safe. As we have heard, without the registers, too many children and young people are at risk of falling through the gaps.

I will respond briefly to the amendments in this group, which are all tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. They suggests exemptions for why a child’s information should not be included on a local authority’s children not in school register.

Amendment 254 seeks to ensure that, if a child does not fit the eligibility criteria, their parents would not be required to provide any information. This is unnecessary. If a child is not eligible to be registered, their parents would not be under the duty to provide information.

Amendments 230, 323, 324 and 326 seek to limit which children must be registered on a local authority children not in school register. A key objective of the registers is to aid local authorities in their existing duty to identify, as far as it is possible to do so, all children in their areas who are not registered pupils in school and are not receiving a suitable education. These amendments would prevent this.

Amendment 230 would exempt children if the parent is able to provide a sworn affidavit from an experienced home educator that the home education being provided is suitable, if the parent has arranged for the child to sit at least three national qualifications, or if the child is enrolled in certain educational provision. None of these proposed reasons for exemption would give a local authority enough assurance that the education being provided is suitable for an individual child.

Amendment 323 would exempt children who are temporarily residing in the UK with a permanent residence elsewhere. Where a child is living in the local authority’s area, even if only for a short time, the local authority has education and safeguarding duties towards the child.

I am particularly disappointed to see Amendments 324 and 326, where the noble Lord suggests exempting asylum-seeking families and families affected by war, natural disaster or economic collapse from registers. These are some of the very children who registers will most benefit. Where local authorities are aware of these children, they can offer support to ensure that their education continues undisrupted. The registers would simply not work if the exemptions that the noble Lord proposes were to apply.

Amendment 325 would enable children aged 14 or over to be exempt from being included on the register if they register as self-directed learners. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear: it is the responsibility of the parents to secure a suitable education for their child. Parents, not children, must remain accountable for this. As we have heard, most parents are fulfilling this duty, but registers will be a crucial tool in identifying where this is not the case so that these children can be supported into suitable education.

Finally in this group, Amendment 423 seeks to allow parents to discharge their duty to provide suitable education when their child is providing services, mentoring or trade-related activities. The Government’s guidance on home education for local authorities and parents sets out that a parent must provide their child with a full-time, efficient, suitable education. Parents therefore have the flexibility to educate their child in whatever manner they deem best for their child, provided it is suitable. This may be able to be achieved through school-type work or through practical education, such as the noble Lord mentioned, depending on the needs of the child. For the reasons I have outlined, namely that exemption of any eligible child for inclusion in the registers would mean that children who may be in receipt of unsuitable education fall through the gaps, I kindly ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I thank the Minister and my noble friend Lady Barran for their comments. Frankly, I am disappointed. I feel that many of the measures that I have proposed are designed to help our wonderful officials, who work in local authorities and are struggling under a huge workload, to focus their efforts with the register, which will create a lot of, let us say, false positives as well as genuine areas where intervention might be needed, and a huge amount of work. That is the focus of these amendments.

The point I wanted to raise about asylum seekers was that asylum seekers are obviously very vulnerable, but under the Bill, the moment when the details of the asylum seeker’s children are in the register, the clock starts ticking. They have two weeks to do it, they have to report X number of people’s email addresses and names, they might not even speak or write English, and yet the clock will start ticking. Of course, local authorities and we as a society need to support asylum seekers, but are we willing to put them through such an onerous process if they choose, for whatever reason, to home-educate? I am not sure that this has been really thought through.

It is not any part of my design to exclude asylum seekers from the support that local authorities can provide; it is just trying to be practical. While I recognise and really applaud the officials working on the front line—already under huge pressure and struggling to work out, within all the noise of all the many databases they have access to, where they should intervene—my concern is that without exemptions such as these, this is going to make their life much more difficult and may indeed lead to safeguarding scandals and problems because they have not been able to get around to the families and children who really do need help.

I am grateful for what has been said. I will reflect on it and may return to it at a later stage but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 230 withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Wei]

270: Clause 31, page 57, line 9, at end insert—
“(6) Each local authority must establish a parental advisory board, composed primarily of home-educating parents, to advise on and scrutinise the authority’s home education policies and procedures.(7) Where a local authority acts in a way that is contrary to the formal advice of the parental advisory board, it must publish a written statement setting out its reasons for doing so and make that statement available to the public within 28 days.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a statutory requirement for each local authority to create a home education parental advisory board. It also requires authorities to provide public justification if they act against the advice of the board, ensuring greater accountability and transparency in decisions affecting home-educating families.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Wei]

353: Clause 32, page 66, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 67
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the local authority’s power to request to visit a child at home, for the purpose of determining whether a school attendance order should be served.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and to give a nod to his amendment. I rise to speak to my Amendment 499 in this group, the purpose of which is incredibly clear: every child is entitled to an excellent education, but that does not mean that every child should receive the same education. The great joy of being born human is that we are born with rich, bright, beautiful diversity from the moment of entering this human world.

The difficulty with the Bill as set out is that it does not fully appreciate this fact or the difficulties parents have in achieving that excellence of provision for their children. In no sense is that a criticism of anybody in the system. Teachers do tremendous work, day in, day out, often in the most pressing, difficult of circumstances. This amendment is all about recognising the particularity of individual provision—not least for children and young people who may be disabled or have special educational needs—the difficulty for parents in trying to get an EHCP, and the often prohibitive cost involved, even if they can go through that time-consuming and terribly intense process.

The amendment simply asks the Secretary of State to produce a focused, “support-first” attendance code of practice that understands the particularities of those circumstances and that does not have an almost forced presumption that school is necessarily the best and only place for excellent educational provision. As I say, the amendment speaks to children, young people and parents across the piece, but it is often children who are disabled, who have special educational needs, and the parents of those children, who find themselves at the sharpest end of this current situation. That is why Amendment 499 suggests a support-focused, support-first attendance code of practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 499, tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, which would require the Secretary of State to issue a statutory attendance code of practice. I believe this is a modest proposal, yet one that could transform how attendance is enforced and supported across England.

First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for stepping in for me last week, when I was unable to be here due to a family wedding. My own attendance record that day did not pass without comment. In fact, when the Whips discovered that the wedding was taking place on the Tuesday, business seemed to be swiftly and suspiciously rescheduled from Monday to Tuesday. In any case, I was unable to attend, but I am grateful none the less both to colleagues and to the staff of the House for their patience with me. My amendments have been submitted in large numbers, and some were received with humour, others less so, but they all make in their different ways the same point. At their heart lies concern about the overreach of this Bill and the heavy burden it will place on families and already overstretched local authority staff and systems.

Talking about attendance, practice across the country is wildly inconsistent, at present. One parent reported that, in their local authority, they have a 75% chance of being issued with a notice to satisfy, and a 35% chance of receiving a school attendance order. That authority issued 270 notices in a single year to just 320 home-educated children. In other areas, parents face nothing like this. This does not seem like safeguarding to me; it is a postcode lottery, and it is indefensible.

The current approach, regrettably, often defaults to enforcement and sanctions, rather than genuinely seeking to understand and address the underlying reason for unattendance. Over the summer, it was reported that Hampshire County Council had netted £1.6 million in revenue by fining families over the past three years. Government data shows that almost half a million penalty notices were issued last year, an increase of 22% from the previous year. This can exacerbate distress, erode trust between families and schools and, ultimately, fail to secure a child’s right to education.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wei]

426D: After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause—
“Sharing local authority best practice on home education(1) All local authorities must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State setting out—(a) the total number of home educators in their area (A),(b) the number of complaints they have received from home educators in the preceding year (B), and(c) the number of School Attendance Orders they have issued in the preceding year (C).(2) The Secretary of State must make funding and resources available to any local authority which performs in the top ten percent of both—(a) B as a percentage of A, and(b) C as a percentage of A,to facilitate those local authorities sharing best practice regarding management of home education with local authorities performing in the bottom ten percent of the same metrics.”

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 426D and 426E tabled in my name. These amendments, though modest in scope, address two fundamental issues in the way that our system interacts with families who choose to home-educate or educate otherwise: the sharing of best practice across local authorities and safeguarding children from harm that may arise when legal action is pursued without due regard for their welfare and education.

Amendment 426D would require all local authorities to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State setting out three simple but highly revealing metrics:

“the total number of home educators in their area … the number of complaints they have received from home educators … and … the number of School Attendance Orders they have issued”.

These figures are important because they shed light on how local authorities are engaging with families. They provide a means of comparison, showing where relationships are constructive and where perhaps mistrust and conflict are more frequent. This amendment goes further: it would introduce a mechanism to reward local authorities that demonstrate strong positive performance under these measures—specifically, those in the top 10%—and whose complaints and attendance orders are low relative to the number of families. They would receive funding and support to share their best practice with authorities that find themselves in the bottom 10%. This is not about penalising weaker authorities but about equipping them to learn from others, improve their systems of engagement and, ultimately, foster more trusting relationships with home educators.

While I have mainly focused in Committee on the problems that arise when local authorities overreach, it is important to recognise that there are many examples of thoughtful and constructive engagement which deserve to be commended. Parents have spoken warmly of meetings in which their children have felt valued. One child enjoyed showing his work after initial hesitation, turning what might have been a stressful encounter into a positive one. Authorities such as Salford have invested in training staff to understand diverse approaches, from structured to child-led learning, while families in Cambridge have noted that their efforts to educate officials about progressive methods have borne fruit. Portsmouth has piloted three-way meetings between school, parent and LA to support families considering elective home education, fostering collaboration rather than conflict.

Other good practice includes the creation of parental advisory boards—informal events where families and officials meet in a supportive environment—and commitments to provide local exam centres and fairer access to resources. These examples remind us that, when authorities choose partnership over prescription, families respond positively and children thrive. In my view, this is precisely the sort of light-touch but constructive intervention that respects both the duties of local authorities and the rights of parents. It recognises that the challenges of home education are best addressed not by top-down prescription but by the careful exchange of experience, knowledge and good practice.

Amendment 426E is motivated by an equally important principle: that the welfare and education of the child must always come first. It makes it clear that no parent should be subject to criminal prosecution, penalty or sanction under the provisions of this Bill, if such legal action would cause harm to their child’s welfare or, on balance, cause greater harm to their education than if the action were not taken. The amendment is carefully drafted. It grounds the definition of welfare in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, the bedrock of our child protection framework, and it ties the understanding of education to both Section 9 of the Education Act 1996, which requires respect for parental wishes, and to Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to education. In other words, this is not about creating a loophole; it is about ensuring that the pursuit of enforcement powers does not, in itself, become a source of harm.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendment proposes not to preclude local authorities from taking other non-legal actions and providing support rather than pursuing legal actions. It is, of course, wholly right that local authorities, as we discussed last week, should take a supportive role to provide advice and guidance to parents. However, in some cases such actions will not be effective in securing a child’s education and the option must be open to local authorities to have that child registered at a school, even as a final measure. Without that option, a child could be left in a situation where they are not receiving a suitable education for an extended period. That would certainly not be in their best interests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and look forward to this letter. I am also grateful to the department for the correspondence that I and other noble Peers received relating to our questions.

I just want to reflect on some of the contributions. First, to clarify, the request for information from local authorities is asking them to provide data that they already have. Even though it might seem a little bureaucratic, I do not think it would require much more than a few minutes, or an hour or so, probably once a year. This is to be balanced with the tremendous bureaucratic demands that will be placed on over 100,000 families, for all the information pertaining to the education of their child, all the providers, which, in many cases will take many hours, days or weeks even, based on testimony I have received from families. So, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a set of data to be provided, to share good practice and highlight where there are areas for improvement on the local authority side, given the disproportionate bureaucratic demands, proposed in this Bill, to be placed on parents.

On Amendment 426E, I want to also clarify that we are not talking about mainstream schooling for the majority of pupils or schools in this country. When I talk about some of the distress, the suicides or attempted suicides of children who are forced back into school through some of our measures, we are talking about extreme cases in this country, where it is inappropriate for that child to be sent to a school. Perhaps they have been home educated all their life. Perhaps, as I have testimony of, the parents who have been busy home educating have been repeatedly asked by the local authority for information—even recently and then asked again. They have said, “We can’t share any more. We need to educate our child”. That very statement that they cannot share the information that they shared very recently is interpreted as the child not receiving a suitable education by the local authority.

At the moment, there is no protection. Ultimately, you go down a legal process. I agree that many of the schools will take great care to ensure that whatever they ask the family to do will not harm the child or harm their education, but there is a gap. I would urge the Minister and department to look at this gap, when it is not the school deciding but the local authority deciding, in some cases without much resource or experienced people. They are having to make a very significant decision about whether to take action against that family. All I am saying is, why do we not pay attention to the harm that might cause? Schools, I think, are cognisant, on the whole, of this if they are functioning well. I am not sure that in every case, every local authority is able to make that decision on its own properly.

By the time you get to the courts—including the European courts and so on—and they enforce the principles, that is great, but that has already taken many months, perhaps a year or two, during which the family has had to face tremendous uncertainty and stress, which will inevitably have an impact on the child’s education.

I have heard the response from the Minister and will reflect on what has been said. I may wish to return to this at a later stage but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 426D withdrawn.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Longfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 469 and 470, and I thank my noble friend for making such a strong and clear case for why they are important.

As a former Children’s Commissioner who worked very much within the framework of the UNCRC as the legal person required to promote and support children’s rights, the Committee will not be surprised to hear me speaking up for these amendments. As part of that role, I met children’s commissioners and Governments from around Europe and the rest of the world. They were at different stages of having regard to the UNCRC, but it was very clear from all my conversations with those who had taken the step towards incorporation—senior members of Government and others working in the public sector and wider society—that this was an important declaration for their country and for how they viewed themselves.

I am proud of the work that this Bill, as well as the wider work of government, is putting forward to make children a much more central commitment in decision-making. These amendments would offer a next, important step. However, the discussion around this can often become quite legalistic and technical, which sometimes distracts. We need to get to the heart of what this is about: making sure that we have a consistent focus on how we, as a nation, put our children first. We know that what happens in childhood will have an impact throughout the whole of life—and that impacts at the heart of who we are as a nation.

Children do not fit neatly into government departments; no one at the Cabinet table exclusively represents the best interests of children. Children do not vote, so they often get missed out in key moments of decision-making, and, as we know, they are most likely to fall through the gaps. In short, it is very easy for children to be overlooked and to fall between the departments and decision-makers who are making policies.

Children’s rights impact assessments can strengthen that move. They may sound technical and bureaucratic, but, again, this is about ensuring that decisions are made in the round and these issues are considered. We most seriously felt the lack of that during the pandemic, when decisions were made that were not in children’s best interests and there was no framework for wider consideration. Many departments undertake impact assessments, but I do not think that they yet have the status or consistency needed across government. During the pandemic, we saw other countries, such as Scotland and Wales, putting forward impact assessments on decisions made about children that considered wide-ranging issues, from economics to schooling and health, to ensure that children’s best interests were looked at in the round. It did not mean that those things could not be improved, but it meant that there was a consistent framework for consideration.

That is what I am putting forward for consideration today: that we take the next step to look at strengthening the framework, within government and our legal system, that puts children on a firm footing—not only in emergencies but in day-to-day life. We must have the ambition of putting children first in all the decisions we make, to ensure that we are not holding them back and that their best interests are taken into account.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 502YP, which stands in my name. This amendment goes to the heart of how government power is exercised in the Bill. It would require the Secretary of State, when issuing guidance and reviewing parental appeals, to act in a manner that is substantively fair, proportionate and consistent with the best interests of the child while also taking into account the burdens that they might impose on families and parents.

Why is such a provision necessary? It is not enough for Ministers to draft guidance that looks acceptable on paper or to frame decisions in language that appears compatible with human rights law. What matters is how these powers operate in practice and how they impact parents and children, and other stakeholders in their daily lives.

Too often, many innocent families that I have spoken with experience the gap between theory and practice. They are told that regulations are light-touch, yet find themselves deluged with data requests, threatened with attendance orders or subject to investigatory processes that are often triggered not by evidence of harm but by mere administrative suspicion. From my work with home-educating families, I have heard repeatedly of parents treated as problems to be managed rather than partners in their child’s learning and well-being. That is not safeguarding; it is coercion disguised as oversight.

I understand that the guidance-led approach and strategy that the Government have taken is a means to try to block loopholes both now and into the future, but I urge the Minister and the department to think about the costs that this Henry VIII-led approach impose. For many families who find themselves on the wrong side of an investigation—and let us remember that the majority of investigations never lead to a conviction —it imposes huge court fees and requires them to set aside years of their lives to fight for their rights. It puts costs on to ordinary citizens. This amendment seeks to ensure that courts, when reviewing such actions, look beyond the fine words of official guidance to their real-world effect.

Does the policy genuinely protect children, or does it impose burdens that are unnecessary, unfair or disproportionate? Does it still respect the primacy of parents under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996, or does it erode it by stealth? The principle of substantive fairness is well established in case law. The Supreme Court has affirmed that state interference with family life must be proportionate, necessary and justified by evidence of significant harm. In R (W) v Birmingham City Council, the court stressed that suspicion alone is insufficient to override parental decision-making, and in Strasbourg jurisprudence, cases such as TP and KM v United Kingdom, and Folgerø and others v Norway, make clear that formal compliance with Article 8 is not enough if, in practice, families are subjected to arbitrary or excessive state interference.

This is not only about legal safeguards but about rebuilding trust. Parents must have the confidence that when the Secretary of State issues guidance it is designed to support, not to harass, empower or intimidate. They must know that appeals will be judged not by a tick-box reading of regulations but by a substantive assessment of what is fair, proportionate and in the best interests of their child.

To use one example, guidance might say that local authorities may request information as necessary. On its face, this sounds reasonable, but in practice families have reportedly been asked for intrusive details about their beliefs, philosophies or private lives—information far beyond what is needed to confirm that a child is receiving a suitable education. Under my amendment, the court would be obliged to ask not just whether the words of the guidance seem lawful but whether its application crosses the line into disproportionate intrusion.

Let us also consider parental appeals. Without a substantive fairness test the Secretary of State could uphold decisions that technically meet the letter of the law or guidance but are manifestly unjust, such as refusing deregistration when a child is in acute distress or supporting disproportionate monitoring conditions that make family life untenable. This amendment would require that such decisions be tested against their effect on the ground.

Some may fear that this opens the door to endless litigation. I would argue the opposite. By embedding the principle of substantive fairness from the outset, we give clearer guidance to decision-makers, reducing the scope for arbitrary or heavy-handed action and thus reducing the likelihood of judicial review. It is precisely when parents and families feel trapped, unheard and mistreated that they resort to the courts.

This amendment is not limited to home-educators; it will protect all families affected by the Bill. Schools will also benefit if guidance remains targeted and proportionate rather than bloated with impractical demands. Local authorities, often stretched to breaking point, will be shielded from the impossible task of enforcing rules that look neat in Whitehall but are unworkable on the ground.

It also respects the proper role of Parliament—of this place. Too often, we legislate with the assumption that the department will interpret and apply the law reasonably, but when guidance becomes overreaching or unfair, it is our reputation that suffers. This amendment restores a crucial check, ensuring that actions under the Bill are judged by their substance, not their spin.

Finally, I stress that this does not prevent the Minister issuing robust guidance where children are genuinely at risk. It requires that such guidance be necessary, proportionate and practically implementable without undermining parental and family rights. That is exactly the balance struck in our domestic law and by the European Court of Human Rights: protection where there is evidence of harm but restraint where there is not.

If we pass the Bill without such safeguards, we risk embedding a culture of formal compliance that is blind to lived reality. We risk measures that look lawful and feel great about them, but that feel unjust. In doing so, we risk losing the trust of the very parents, families and children whose partnership we need to safeguard children’s lives effectively.

Amendment 502YP offers a principled, proportionate solution. It ensures that the law is not just words on paper but fairness in practice. It strengthens oversight, protects families and upholds the integrity of our child protection and education systems. I commend it to the Committee.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 469 and 470, particularly the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, who has such experience.

I should like to concentrate briefly on listening to the child. In 1987-88, I chaired the statutory inquiry into the Cleveland child abuse. I heard, with my assessors, a lot of videos of children being interviewed. It was extraordinary how even very young children of five or six were able to give astonishingly accurate accounts of what had happened to them and what they wanted done. The older children were explaining not only how they had been interviewed but how they wanted their voices to be heard, and they were not being heard.

In my recommendations, I pointed out that children were people and not packages. That idea, that children are people entitled to be heard, does not mean that they are entitled to have what they want done—it may not be appropriate—but it is crucial to hear what they want done.

It seems to me that these two amendments put on the statute book part of the very important United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been referred to frequently today. It is a bit odd that we have not embraced it fully in English law, though it is embraced in other parts of the United Kingdom. It is very odd indeed.

What really matters it that what children want should be heard. They should be listened to, and what they need and want should be evaluated. That is why these two amendments are so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 502YQ is mainly to probe the Government’s intention in relation to their own use of data regarding this Bill. This amendment addresses an issue that has surfaced repeatedly in our many debates: the scope of data collection about children in education. We have heard a lot today about the role of technology providers, but I want to turn the focus to how we are collecting data within the education system in government.

My amendment would ensure that personal data may be collected, retained or processed only where it is strictly necessary to protect a child from significant harm, as defined in Section 31 of the Children Act 1989. Why is this needed? The Bill as drafted gives wide latitude to local authorities and the Secretary of State to demand data on children not in school—an area that I really care about—as well as potentially on others. In particular, the data demanded of children not in school—we have already heard about the amount of data that is already collected on children in school—is off the scale. We are told that this is for safeguarding, but safeguarding has a very specific meaning in law. It is not a licence for limitless information gathering; it is a duty to act when a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.

Clause 31, for instance, invites local authorities to gather information far beyond what is necessary. Names, addresses and dates of birth are sufficient to identify a child and discharge oversight duties. However, the Bill’s wording allows for much more, including details of parental and children’s beliefs, educational philosophy, supplementary providers and even protected characteristics. This, to me, is mission creep, not proportionate oversight. As the department has itself acknowledged in past consultations, the bare minimum of data suffices to track children and ensure that no one falls through the net. To demand more because it might be helpful is not lawful data processing. Data protection law is clear: collection must be limited to what is necessary for the purpose. Helpful is not enough.

The risks of excessive data collection are not theoretical. Families have already seen sensitive information stored indefinitely, cross-referenced with other records and sometimes shared with agencies in ways that they did not consent to or even know about. One military family with whom I have interacted recounted how their local authority repeatedly contacted the father’s workplace about his children, despite clear instructions not to do so. Another home-educating mother described how, after deregistering a child with special needs, she was followed in public after being wrongly referred to social services. These are not safeguards; they are intrusions to undermine trust.

We must also remember that not all parents in the system are confident or well resourced. Some are vulnerable, fleeing domestic abuse or suffering with SEND bureaucracy. For them, intrusive data demands feel less like protection and more like surveillance. If the state is perceived as hostile, families may retreat from engagement altogether, making genuine safeguarding harder, not easier. That is why my amendment would tie permissible data collection to the Section 31 threshold of “significant harm”, which is already the bedrock of child protection law. It is the line that our courts have drawn between parental primacy and state intervention. Aligning data powers with that line ensures consistency, legality and proportionality.

Proposed new subsection (2) in my amendment would ensure proportionality by limiting data to what was essential for the specific risk identified. If the concern is neglect then collect information relating to neglect; if the concern is radicalisation, focus on that. Do not use safeguarding as a pretext for wide-ranging dossiers on families’ private lives. Proposed new subsection (3) would close off another danger: profiling. We should not be gathering data to build long-term behavioural profiles of children or to monitor families against vague benchmarks of compliance. That is not safeguarding; it is social engineering by stealth. Proposed new subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to publish clear guidance within six months, so that local authorities, schools and parents know the limits of permissible data collection. That guidance should provide clarity, consistency and accountability.

Some might worry that the amendments would tie the hand of professionals. On the contrary, they would free them to focus on what matters. Instead of drowning in forms and files and data, they could concentrate on children at genuine risk. Excessive data is not neutral; it diverts time, money and attention from where it is most needed.

International law supports this approach. In MM v the UK in 2012 the European Court of Human Rights held that the retention of excessive personal data without clear necessity breached Article 8, while in Ali v the UK in 2015 the court stressed that decisions must be informed by accurate, relevant and proportionate information. We cannot claim compliance with Article 8 if we allow the indefinite harvesting of families’ and children’s private details “just in case”.

The amendment is not only for home educators, though their experience has highlighted this problem in the Bill. It would protect every family in the education system. It would ensure that schools are not turned into data collection points for the state and that local authorities are not saddled with the impossible burden of storing, processing and protecting sensitive information that they do not always need. Above all, it would protect children from being profiled, stigmatised, or surveyed in ways that bear no relation to genuine safeguarding.

In passing the Bill, we must not create a database state by accident. We must legislate with care, remembering that data is not neutral—it is power. It is the new oil, in fact. Used well, it can protect; used badly, it can harm. Amendment 502YQ would ensure that that power was exercised with clear limits, tied to the statutory threshold of significant harm. That is fair, proportionate and faithful to the principles of our child protection law. I commend it to the House.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, Covid was certainly the rocket fuel for the growth of educational technology in our schools, which is now accepted as part of the school learning landscape. The UK’s education tech sector is the largest in Europe, spending, as we already heard, an estimated £900 million a year. However, there are real concerns that these amendments seek to address, which is why we will be supporting Amendments 493, 494, 502K, 502YH and 502YI.

The edtech sector is exempt from the Online Safety Act, and adherence to GDPR is inconsistent, to say the least. Large multiuse platforms such as Google Classroom and Microsoft Teams can enhance teaching and school management, but the absence of clear statutory standards leaves children’s education and school cybersecurity often at risk. We surely need a regulated framework to safeguard children’s rights, protect the data and prevent the commercial exploitation of children. We sleepwalked into the development of social media. Now that we see the harm that has been caused, we rush to try to do something about it. There is a strong case for developing a regulated framework to safeguard children’s rights and support schools in making informed and sustainable choices.

I want to respond to what I thought was a very thoughtful contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. It made me think that six years ago I had a Private Member’s Bill on essay mills and contract cheating. That is now all for naught, because there are other ways of cheating, and AI helps that considerably.

I had an intern who one day said to me, “Lord Storey, here’s a speech for you”. I said, “Ooh, let me have a look”. I read the speech and thought, “Wow, this is great. I’ll use this”. He told me that it was AI generated. “Really?”, I said. I wondered whether in five or 10 years your Lordships’ House might be a very different place for speeches. Might we all succumb to using not our own thoughts and experiences but AI to generate speeches? Would anybody know in five or 10 years’ time, when the technology will be absolutely spot on?

I want to deal briefly with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 502YU concerns reception baseline assessments. The Minister will recall that I raised this in an Oral Question. There is something a little perverse about the youngest children—five year-olds—doing their assessments on a screen. I have a degree of sympathy for the noble Baroness’s amendment, and I hope the Minister can shed some light on it.

Regarding the other two amendments, I know that SEND exceptions are mentioned, but as my noble friend Lord Addington said in his hugely important contribution, it is not either/or. We have to think through these amendments carefully, as there are other issues, not just special educational needs, that we need to be aware of. We do not want to agree something that creates problems for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, on my count, almost 20 amendments have been tabled to the Bill requiring the Secretary of State within six or 12 months of the Act being passed to promulgate some regulations or undertake a review of a particular provision of the Act. My amendment is more comprehensive and adopts a longer timeframe. It would require the Secretary of State within five years of the passage of the Act to undertake a review of its operation and effect. The wording is the same as that of an amendment I tabled to the Employment Rights Bill and has the same justification.

Post-legislative scrutiny is essential for ensuring that the law we enact meets the various criteria of good law. We cannot know that it does without undertaking a thorough review and, in effect, completing a legislative feedback loop. There is no point in enacting legislation that then fails to deliver what it is intended to deliver and for us to proceed, in essence, in ignorance of its effects.

The case for post-legislative review has been accepted by government since 2008, with a commitment to reviewing most Acts three to five years after enactment. Ministers have variously reiterated that commitment. However, not all departments are rigorous in complying with it. The Government have also introduced a get-out clause saying that there may not be a review if, following correspondence with the chair of the relevant departmental Select Committee, it is agreed that a review may not be necessary. As I pointed out when the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, reported this, it is not clear how a chair will know that a review is not necessary without undertaking some initial review. It is also not clear why this House is excluded from the process.

As I argued on the Employment Rights Bill, there is a case for putting on the face of a measure provision for post-legislative scrutiny where

“the Bill is large, is complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny”.—[Official Report, 24/6/25; col. 223.]

This Bill is clearly substantial, both in length and content, and it makes a major change to educational law in this country—it has been characterised by my noble friend Lord Lucas as striking

“at the heart of the relationship between parents and the Government”.—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.]

It has clearly engendered strong opinions; we have had extensive debate, with 12 days in Committee, as to its likely effects. It has also been introduced without pre-legislative scrutiny.

Making provision in the Bill for post-legislative scrutiny would enable all the claims made as to the effects of the Bill to be tested. Including such a provision would also help reassure critics of the Bill that there will be such a review. That may help the process of getting the Bill through.

The Minister may say that the amendment is unnecessary given that the Bill will qualify automatically for review three to five years after enactment. Making a clear commitment at the Dispatch Box, putting on the official record that the Bill will be subject to post-legislative review, is obviously valuable; we got such a commitment on the Employment Rights Bill. However, as I pointed out in debate on that Bill, the wording of my amendment derives from the Government’s own amendment to the then Football Governance Bill. The Government, to their credit, accepted the argument for putting provision for post-legislative scrutiny in that Bill and brought forward their own amendment. The grounds for doing so apply in the case of this Bill.

As I say, it would be welcome to have a commitment at the Dispatch Box that there will be post-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, but it will be even better to enshrine it in the Bill. Putting it in the Bill will demonstrate that the Government are confident that they will deliver on what it is intended to deliver. If the Minister resists the amendment, it will be helpful to hear from her how she distinguishes this Bill from the Football Governance Bill in terms of the merits of putting post-legislative scrutiny in the Bill. Does she or does she not accept that good law is a public good? I beg to move.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 502YN and 502YR, which stand in my name. These amendments are bound by a common theme: that the powers we create in this Bill must be effective, proportionate and accountable, not only in ordinary times but in moments of crisis, when authoritarian temptations grow stronger.

Amendment 502YN would establish an annual review of all measures introduced by the Bill. Each year, the Secretary of State would be required to test whether those measures are achieving their stated purpose, and whether they are doing so without imposing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on parents, children, schools, providers, local authorities or the department itself. Where a measure fails, it should be amended or repealed. If no action is taken, within two years it must lapse. This is about accountability cutting both ways. Families, schools and community groups—huge numbers of stakeholders—are being asked in this Bill to account for children’s education. It is only fair that the Government should account for the laws they pass.

We have been warned many times in these debates about the dangers of excessive bureaucracy and mission creep. Clause 31, the proposed register of children not in school, illustrates this risk. In principle, such a register may help identify who is being educated outside mainstream settings. In practice, the Bill demands far more data than is needed. In Portsmouth, more than 70% of home-educated children have already been served notices or orders annually, compared with a national average closer to 1%. That is not proportional oversight; it is overreach.

The effects ripple outward. Children suffer when teachers, social workers and SEND staff are forced to spend more time filling in forms than supporting them, and parents are treated with suspicion, not because of evidence of harm but because they made a lawful choice to educate differently. Schools themselves may be dragged down by compliance checks that drain morale and resources. Providers and tutors may be chilled by one size fits all rules designed for large institutions but applied indiscriminately. Community groups and charities—often the lifeline for struggling families and children—will find scarce volunteer time consumed by licensing and paperwork.

We have seen where such unchecked bureaucracy leads. The contact point database was launched with the best of intentions to safeguard children. It collapsed under its own weight: disproportionate, unworkable and ultimately abandoned. Scotland’s named person scheme likewise promised protection but in practice extended excessive authority and intrusive data collection before being struck down. These are cautionary tales of what happens when there is no obligation to review and no sunset clause to cut away what does not work.

Yet the risks are not only of inefficiency; there is something deeper. Bureaucracy when excessive is not neutral. It becomes a means of control. It erodes freedom, not by open coercion but by endless demands that exhaust and intimidate until families, schools and communities yield.

That is why Amendment 502YR is so important: it recognises that powers created in good faith can one day be misused. It would require that, within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State ensures that a mechanism is ready so that, in any national emergency or period of authoritarian governance, the courts, not Ministers, retain the final authority to uphold the primacy of parental rights in their children’s education.

We cannot ignore the geopolitical context. Across Europe and beyond, we see the rise of extremes on both left and right. Authoritarian Governments rarely declare themselves at the outset; they grow by increments, often beginning with education. They use registers and guidance powers, not to support families but to control them. They impose ideological curricula, marginalise communities of faith and stifle innovation and dissent in the classroom. Disturbingly, elements of this Bill draw inspiration, whether knowingly or not, from an unlikely and troubling source. The original departmental human rights justification cited to justify state intervention in home education here arose from a case in Germany where a home-educating parent was prosecuted under laws dating back to the 1930s. These laws, introduced under Hitler’s regime, continue today to ban home education outright in Germany. It is sobering that our own debates now echo arguments first made to defend a system designed not to protect children but to eliminate educational pluralism—one that our own national wartime Government in the 1940s sought to fight by giving parents the ultimate say over their children’s education.

We must not follow that path. We must not allow powers framed as safeguards to evolve into machinery that stifles freedom. This is not to deny the state its proper role in protecting children. Safeguarding is vital, but safeguarding fails when systems chase compliance instead of risk: when form filling replaces human judgment, when bureaucracy itself becomes the end rather than the means. In such a climate, children most in need are overlooked while families acting responsibly, and schools, are burdened and alienated.

The two amendments before us are modest disciplines against such outcomes. The first creates a feedback loop: Parliament learns from the real-world impact of its laws and corrects course where necessary. The second ensures that, when times grow dark, there is a constitutional anchor, that courts can guard against authoritarian misuse, ensuring that parental primacy in education is never extinguished by bureaucratic or dictatorial creep.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, the Government will take action if the post-implementation review of the Bill as per the Better Regulation Framework identifies that objectives are yet to be met or improvements could be made, but it would not necessarily be proportionate to repeal measures or make legislative changes in the way in which this amendment proposes. The Government would quite reasonably want the flexibility to consider the best course of action—

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I thank the Minister. On my understanding, having spoken to those who know about the workings of the Regulatory Policy Committee, which the Minister said greenlit the Bill, in the last few years it has not been allowed to ask for submissions, on receiving a draft Bill, to scrutinise whether that Bill fits within the kind of good regulatory framework that we all would like to see. So the information that it had to greenlight this Bill was very limited indeed. If you cannot ask people what they think of the Bill, obviously any information you have is very limited and you can only go on what you have been given, which is further ammunition for the point that the Bill needs a lot of scrutiny, because it did not really have any before it was brought before this House.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Regulatory Policy Committee had the benefit of our published regulatory impact assessment to review. Wider comments about the efficacy of the Regulatory Policy Committee are for the noble Lord to make to the Regulatory Policy Committee, rather than using it as a stick to beat this particular Bill. Frankly, as we are coming to the end—nearly—of day 12 of Committee on this Bill, the idea that it has not had sufficient scrutiny is laughable, given the time and care that was also spent in the other place, which has been massively exceeded by the time and care that has been spent by noble Lords in this House during the course of this Committee.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

Just to clarify, the words I used were, “before it was brought before this House”. The reason it has had so many days of scrutiny is because it was not drafted in a way that was appropriate. We have spent so much time on it. We cannot believe how many nights and days we have all had to work on this. If we could have Bills in future that had a bit more effort put into their drafting by policymakers and others, we could use the time of this House really well. I am not in any way criticising or saying that the work of this House is wasted. In fact, it has been very necessary to get us to where we are today.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that noble Lords have spent considerable hours on this—some more than others, I think it is fair to say.

Amendment 505C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, seeks assurances, via a published statement, on how the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to private providers of publicly funded children’s social care services. The amendment seeks a pause in the commencement of Clauses 12 to 18 of the Bill until such a statement is made. These clauses cover measures relating to provider and financial oversight, profit caps, Ofsted and Secretary of State powers to impose monetary penalties, and information sharing between Ofsted and the Secretary of State.

I thank my noble friend for bringing important human rights considerations to our attention. Protecting the human rights of all children is of paramount importance, and the Bill is delivering a number of important measures to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in services. I completely understand the reasoning behind my noble friend’s amendment and would like to provide the Committee with reassurances on the robustness and broad applicability of the human rights legal framework, including for children’s social care services.

Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with the European Convention on Human Rights, and this duty extends to private providers when they are performing functions of a public nature. There is no statutory definition of “functions of a public nature”, but relevant factors considered by the courts include the extent to which the body, in carrying out the relevant function, is publicly funded, exercising statutory powers, taking the place of central government or local authorities, or providing a public service. This broad-scope approach is intentional to ensure that a wide range of services can be captured, as appropriate.

Any statement that the Government make, as proposed by my noble friend, would not be legally binding. Whether a provider is carrying out functions of a public nature and is therefore in scope of the Human Rights Act is for the courts to determine, based on the facts in each specific case. However, to be clear, the Government’s position is that, were a court required to decide whether the private provision of core children’s social care services—services that local authorities are legally required to provide—falls in scope of the Human Rights Act 1998, we believe that the court would conclude that they were indeed performing a function of a public nature and would therefore be in scope.

My noble friend has identified the distinction between the approach taken here and that taken in the Mental Health Bill. As he said, the DHSC is making it explicit in that Bill that certain mental health services are deemed to be exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, but those amendments are being made following case law that identified a gap in the application of the HRA to the private provision of the services in question—some of which my noble friend referenced, I think.

No such gap has been identified through case law in relation to private provision of children’s social care services. Therefore, our view is that no clarification of the law is necessary for these services and, as I have emphasised, we continue to be of the view that the private provision of core children’s social care services would be considered to be within scope of the Human Rights Act. I suspect that, in pushing me, my noble friend might say, “Why don’t we take a belt-and-braces approach here, anyway?” The issue is that attempting to provide further specificity around certain services risks other services being unintentionally excluded by virtue of their omission. This is the way, as I understand it, that lawyers tend to work.

I emphasise again that we are content that the Human Rights Act as drafted is flexible enough to capture those functions that need to be within scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. We believe that would be upheld in any case with respect to children’s social care services. It is also important to remember that children’s social care is a highly regulated sector, subject to inspection and accountability processes aimed at keeping children safe and promoting their best interests. The local authority arranging or funding the relevant service would also always be within scope of the Human Rights Act in the exercise of its functions as a core public authority.

On this basis, I hope my noble friend might be reassured. We do not consider it necessary or appropriate to delay the commencement of other important Bill measures that are designed to ensure children in relevant settings are protected. We are confident in the existing legal framework and hope that we have provided the necessary reassurances and statements here today to reassure him. I hope, given my responses, that noble Lords would feel able to not press their amendments.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Wei Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will be very brief. It is an old, apparently African, adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is no less true for that. What that captures in a few words is that raising a child is a balance: a partnership between the parents on the one hand and the wider community on the other. I think that is what we are trying to get at in this group of amendments: what are the appropriate powers for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents?

It is a long-standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home-educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting them in a place where they are potentially at risk and at danger then clearly concerns must be raised. Having listened carefully to this debate, I will, if they are pressed to Divisions, support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Amendment 121A and maybe later in Amendment 131A. They are probably as nuanced as we are going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad balls for which we should not be setting the field.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 164B, 164C, 167A, 170A, 170B, 175ZD and 175ZE in my name. All these amendments are rooted in one concern, and we have had a lot of debate already that touches on this: that it is not whether the state may act, but how it does so. It is not whether safeguarding matters, because it does, but whether the systems we design can tell the difference between care and control, and between help and coercion.

I welcome those of the Government’s amendments that strengthen scrutiny, including by using the affirmative procedure. That kind of restraint does not weaken authority; it makes it legitimate. Where I differ is where further processes, or compulsory steps, are placed on parents simply to complete a sequence. Support should be available, but it should not become mandatory and it should not become a gateway to enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be favourable towards my amendments, compared with Amendment 135A, which seeks to reduce the information on page 58 that the local authority must take into account. I do not quarrel with that; I just think my amendments are simpler and better for application. Above all, they accord with the words of my noble friend the Minister when she wrote in her letter of 7 January that “it is important to ensure a proportional approach, providing local authorities with the information they need without placing unnecessary burdens on parents”. I suggest that my amendments achieve that. Regrettably, I suggest that the Bill as presently drafted does not. I beg to move.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group, namely Amendments 148A, 148B, 148D, 148E, 153A, 155A, 161D and 174A. Together, they are concerned with one question: how information about children and families is collected, used, retained and acted on under the Bill. Again, I begin by recognising that the Government have shown restraint where Ministers have strengthened scrutiny, tightened procedures and limited the scope for open-ended regulation-making, and it deserves acknowledgement. My amendments in this group are animated by a single concern: if Parliament is minded to create a register, it must be tightly bounded, purpose-limited and structured so that it does not normalise suspicion or routine burden and data sought must be proportionate to serving a legitimate aim and narrowly tailored. It must not indirectly discriminate against or unduly burden parents who choose to home educate when compared with children attending recognised schools.

Amendments 148A and 148B concern data use and data governance. The true risk of a register lies not only in what it collects but in what that information becomes over time. Data once shared rarely contracts. Once repurposed, it rarely remains confined to its original purpose. We are collecting quite a lot of data here on quite a lot of sensitive matters. Some have argued that this is really a kind of digital ID by the back door, which I do not think many of our citizens are very enamoured of right now.

Amendment 148A would draw a clear statutory boundary. It would provide that information may be shared only where necessary and proportionate for the education or welfare of the individual child, and it must not be repurposed for population-level profiling, predictive modelling, automated risk scoring or speculative secondary uses. This is not hostility to safeguarding, it is respect for trust. Safeguarding will collapse when families believe that information given for one reason will be later used for another. Amendment 148B would complement this by making explicit that all regulations governing the register must comply with data protection law by requiring consultation with the Information Commissioner and representatives of affected families before regulations are made. This is not decorative, it is constitutional. When people cannot foresee how their data will be used, trust dissolves.

Amendment 148D would introduce a deletion rule so that information must be removed after five years or earlier where the child is no longer within scope, unless there are recorded safeguarding grounds for attention. Childhood is not a permanent status, and our legal architecture should reflect that. Permanent records create permanent consequences. This amendment would prevent the register becoming a life history file for families who have done nothing wrong while preserving the ability to retain data where there is a genuine and ongoing safeguarding justification.

Amendment 148E is equally important. It would place into statute the principle that Ministers have articulated today, namely, that education otherwise than at school is lawful and must not of itself be treated as a reasonable cause to suspect harm or educational failure. I know there was an assurance about this principle that home education is legitimate, but much of what we have seen in the Bill does not seem to suggest that that belief is held tightly by those who drafted it. Presumptions are powerful. Once a category is treated as suspicious, every interaction becomes shaped by that assumption. This amendment would ensure that the burden of justification remains where it belongs: with the state.

Amendments 153A and 155A address burden and frequency. Amendment 153A would place a clear ceiling on routine requests for meetings, information or home access of no more than once in any 12-month period, unless there is reasonable cause to suspect significant harm, in which case more frequent engagement remains possible but is still bounded. It would make clear that a parent’s failure to comply with a routine request must not of itself be treated as evidence of unsuitable education and that a parent’s notice to home educate takes legal effect when given. This is about temporal proportionality. Frequency is not neutral. Repetition changes the character of a relationship. Rolling engagement becomes rolling surveillance.

Amendment 155A would complement this by requiring that information demands must be reasonably required, proportionate and not of such volume or frequency that they materially damage the child’s education by diverting parental time and resources away from teaching. This is a real risk. Oversight that crowds out education defeats its purpose. I have also tabled Amendment 161D, which would require written reasons for decisions to provide families with a right to correct factual inaccuracies in the register. Large systems generate errors. If we are going to create records that shape how families are treated, those records must be contestable and correctable.

I support the proposed cyber security Amendments 172 and 247A, which would prevent these provisions being commenced. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a great point in Committee about reviewing the cyber security risks around storing this data, which is so important given that just recently we had a breach of government data.

I should be clear about what I cannot support. I cannot support approaches that normalise routine monitoring or turn lawful difference into a reason for scrutiny, nor can I support amendments that increase admin burdens on families by default rather than in response to evidence of harm.

The question before us is not whether the state may act where there is evidence of risk—it must—but what kind of system are we going to build? Is it going to be targeted, proportionate and trusted or one that drifts into routine suspicion and routine intrusion? I commend these amendments to the House.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 135A in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before doing so, I once again thank the Minister for having reduced the requirements in this section considerably—I am very pleased not to have to comment on whether Scouts, rugby clubs, cricket clubs or anything are included—and getting rid of the 15-day requirement to report. Those are significant improvements.

In terms of process, I shall just pick up on one point, which I raised earlier, so I will not speak at length on it, about how this process of putting information on the register fits in with the annual reporting process that happens in an awful lot of authorities. That may be a local issue rather than a national one, but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.

Amendment 135A from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is largely heading in the same direction as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I think it is proportionate. I think it is important that proposed new subsection (3) states:

“Nothing … prevents a local authority from requesting further information … where the authority has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education”.


In other words, it is a two-step process so that one does not automatically assume that the parents are guilty, as it were, because there would be a two-step process before the local authority asks for more information.

I shall draw out one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made, which is that not all parents need to be recorded on the register, only those who are taking responsibility for the education of the child. That is entirely in keeping with where we are currently, in that to withdraw a child from registration to school, you need only one parent’s signature. It seems to me that, in putting them on the register in this way, you only need those parents who are taking responsibility. It is not necessary to involve other parents, including those who may be a danger to the other parent or to the child. I simply make those points.

I have a lot of sympathy for the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, around the security of the use of information, not least because I believe I am right saying that we are talking not about one register but 150. This is not a national register, this is 150 registers. What chance do we think that somewhere in those 150 problems will occur in terms of security and of people getting access? I think these are real concerns, and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister says about the various amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, has tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise, first, to thank the Government, on behalf of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for bringing forward Amendment 146, putting carers on the register. We heard moving testimony in Committee about some incredibly young carers aged eight, nine or 10 looking after several members of their families—siblings and parents. In some cases, they were apparently being home-educated, but from the point of view of the adults they were caring for, looking after them took priority. That is why it is so important and so helpful that they will be recorded.

I also support my noble friend Lord Crisp and Amendment 175ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which is along the same lines—it is for children who are coming to the final parts of their home education and will, one hopes, take and pass exams. There is a real postcode lottery, particularly post-Covid, in access to examination centres. In parts of the country such as Cornwall or large parts of the north of England, it is extraordinarily difficult for parents to access examination centres for their children. In some cases, they have to travel one and a half to three hours to go to them. In many cases, their children are not taking a single paper; they might be taking three or four papers for mathematics, so they have to go back and forth. Some of those children will have some challenging behaviours and may find that an examination centre is not an environment that they are entirely comfortable in. Having it within reasonable reach and access of where one lives is exceptionally important.

For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about this and look at some of the facts and figures. The charity, Education Otherwise, has looked into this in great detail and has a lot of really quite useful and compelling information. I hope that if the department is prepared to look at that, it might be able to think again.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 161A, 175ZA, 175ZB and 175ZC in my name. These amendments sit in a part of the Bill that would be felt most sharply not in Whitehall but in kitchens and living rooms by parents doing their best for children whose needs do not fit neatly in the school system. When Parliament reaches into family life, it has to do so with care, because it is easy to create a framework that looks reasonable on paper and yet breathes mistrust in practice.

Again, I want to acknowledge at the outset the Government’s movement in this group. Government Amendment 158 recognises the reality of exam access and ensures that information about GCSE routes can be provided to parents who ask for it. Amendment 159 creates a regular forum for parents to raise concerns and discuss how this regime operates. Amendment 161 tidies the drafting around exam-related provisions. These are sensible steps. They start to show an understanding that families need information and a channel of engagement, and I welcome them.

Yet there remains a gap between permission and protection. Information may be offered, but access can still fail, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others. A forum may be held, but families can still feel unheard when nothing changes. These amendments in my name aim to close that gap with light-touch safeguards that strengthen legitimacy and reduce conflict. With the Government having shown that they are listening, I think that many of us hope that, on these quite non-contentious amendments, they will also come back with suggested changes to the Bill, as well as afterwards in the statutory guidance, to understand these realities.

Amendment 161A would require each local authority to establish a home education parental advisory board, composed primarily of parents with recent experience of elective home education in the area. We are not trying to create new bureaucracy for its own sake; it is about a practical feedback loop. Families most affected by these powers are often those most able to spot unintended consequences earlier than we can in this environment. When policy is made without their input, misunderstanding becomes routine, and routine misunderstanding can become the culture of the system. Advisory boards would keep local authorities grounded in reality; they would create discipline around reasoning, and when an authority departs from a formal recommendation, my amendment suggests that it needs to explain why. That simple requirement can improve decision-making and build trust.

I want to express strong support for Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which addresses a long-standing injustice that the House should not tolerate any longer. Home-educated children face serious obstacles in accessing examinations. Parents are left to navigate a patchwork of centres, fees, refusals, capacity limits and inconsistent arrangements. This is not just in small cases—it is in many instances. Qualifications open doors, and access is important; we must not make the children pay the price. With my own children, we had to travel several hundred miles to the south coast pretty much for all their GCSEs, and you can imagine how many they did, how many you multiply that by, and how many hotel stays that meant for my dear wife, who did most of the heavy lifting, although I drove a few times myself.

My Amendment 175ZC would place a clear duty on local authorities to secure reasonable access to approved exam centres, building on the thinking around Amendment 160, including adjustments for children with special educational needs. That would ensure that the responsibility is not left just to good will or market convenience. Somebody mentioned that, in the summer of last year, around 47,000 home-educated children in England were in their exam years, yet there are fewer than 200 centres listed as supporting them, many with limited capacity—and there is uneven geographic coverage. Whether a child can access qualifications should not depend on commercial viability or geography; we need to provide equitable access to this basic infrastructure as a responsibility of the state.

Amendment 175ZA deals with the related harm that is already appearing. Some providers are withdrawing opportunities for home-educated children in anticipation of new compliance burdens. Museums, activities, learning programmes and even basic services can become quietly harder to access. That may not be the Government’s intention but, because you are talking about a higher level of scrutiny and information-sharing requirements, that is already causing people to hold back. This amendment would draw a clear statutory line against discrimination and extra administrative hurdles imposed solely because a child is educated otherwise than at school. Lawful educational choice should not become a reason for exclusion.

Finally, Amendment 175ZB addresses the people who will operate these powers. I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that training will be provided to those in local authorities working with home-educating families, and I welcome that. The House knows that guidance can be diluted over time, especially when you are under pressure and you have lots of families to look after with not much more funding. This amendment would require a national training standard to be issued, covering elective home education and related SEND, lawful decision-making and the avoidance of unconscious bias when dealing with these families. These families deserve consistency, and officers deserve clarity; a system with serious powers needs competent hands.

Safeguarding works best when families co-operate, and co-operation relies on trust. Trust is earned through fairness, understanding and clear routes for participation. These amendments would strengthen these foundations, and I hope that the Government show good will towards the many home-educating families who are going to have huge disruption to their lives in the coming years by looking at these amendments and others today, especially those on the area of access to exams. I urge the House to support them.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 175ZC, which we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when talking to Amendment 158, painted a very rosy picture of parents being signposted to happy centres where their children could all take wonderful exams and obviously achieve enormous success. However, the reality, from what I have seen and heard, is a very different thing. Amendment 175ZC provides a very clean solution.

Access to exams is the golden thread. We want as many of our students to succeed—they have to do their exams. If they are driving hundreds of miles, that is not going to work. I genuinely think that working in partnership with local state schools would be quite a simple thing. There is always room in an exam hall for an extra 10 people, and you have the invigilators already. It would be a very simple thing, so I urge the Government to accept these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their very considered comments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing his experience into the Chamber. I thank him for the considerate way that he has approached this. I hope we will continue to have a constructive dialogue as we move forward on these important issues.

Amendment 160, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and Amendments 161A and 175ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to require local authorities to act supportively towards, and establish advisory boards of, home-educating families, and ensure that home-educated children can access examinations. As I said at the beginning of this group, local authorities should be sources of support for home-educating families. Noble Lords’ engagement has been constructive and I reassure them that this will be further strengthened by the support duty in the Bill, which is the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families, as well as the government amendments in this group, which clarify that information on GCSE exam access should be provided as part of the support duty and require local authorities to arrange biannual engagement forums, as we have discussed.

We also recognise the importance of ensuring that parents are responsible for bearing the costs of any exams they may enter their child for before they make the decision to withdraw them from school. This is something already made clear in the department’s Elective Home-education guidance and which we would expect to be discussed as part of the mandatory meetings pilots that my noble friend described earlier. To expand on this, while some of these things seem straightforward, they are more involved than perhaps has been suggested. The question is: why can we not require local authorities to find exam centres for all home-educated students? This would involve a local authority forcing a state school or college to accommodate a home-educated pupil. We do not think this is right or appropriate. Exam centres, schools, colleges and private institutions rightly take their own decisions on whether they can accept private candidates based on their individual circumstances, such as financial and administrative capacity and logistical considerations. Schools and colleges have finite resources and exams must be delivered in line with strict regulatory requirements, including desk spacing, appropriate invigilator-to-candidate ratios and the secure administration of assessments to ensure that they are conducted fairly and safely. When a centre is able to accommodate a private candidate within these requirements, we fully encourage it to do so. However, it would not be appropriate to require a centre to breach exam regulations or compromise the integrity of the assessment, or to require a school with a full exam hall potentially to exclude one of their own pupils to make space for a private candidate. Instead, we encourage arrangements to be based on an understanding of each exam centre’s local circumstances and relationships.

However, the department will contact both state-funded and independent schools and colleges to encourage them to accept private candidates and to be included on the list of centres published by the JCQ, as appropriate. To pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, we will also work with the JCQ to explore whether this list can be made available earlier in the year so that families have timely and accurate information to support their planning.

In addition, we will update our guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to provide clear and accessible information for home-educating families at an early stage about the qualifications and exam centres in their area. This will help families to consider exam arrangements before starting a course of study, make informed choices about assessment options and avoid unnecessary travel, where possible.

[Lord Wei (Con)]

I welcome this timely provision of information for families. I speak for myself, but Peers here have also spoken about the need for exam access and would not want to burden state or other schools that have completely full exam halls. I wonder whether, maybe through a letter, we could have a further conversation with the department about this.

As that information is gathered and you discover what access there is in a local authority, if there literally is none for exams, could there not be some dialogue with the local schools? This would not be to force them to do anything they cannot do, or cannot afford to do, but just to ask how many spare desks they have in their exam halls, which they probably will be able to tell you very quickly. Then, that will allow conversations to happen about creating something in the area, which often may be absent, as we found.