Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
“(6A) A child is not required to be registered under this section if the parent has submitted a portfolio annually demonstrating suitable education and learning progress.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows an educational portfolio as an alternative to registration, offering a less intrusive way for parents to demonstrate their child is receiving suitable education.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 231 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wei, who regrets that he is not able to be here today, as he has to attend a close family member’s wedding.
The day looks as if it will be devoted to elective home education and, owing to my imminent defenestration and general crumbling health, I am in a position to say—since I shall be disengaging from this arena after 15 years in it—that I have found the home education community a total delight to work with. It is a collection of extraordinary people, and I find it very easy to understand how the Government do not find them easy to work with. I very much hope that, in the course of the Bill, we will help lay the foundations for a good, strong relationship.
I thank very much the Minister and her civil servants for all the time and effort they took over the Recess to work through the amendments in this section and to look at how we might gain a better understanding of them and share that with the home education community. I look forward to the continuance of that progress through Report. My approach today will be to be very concise where I can—I will await what the Minister says about individual amendments and respond to that. So much has passed between us and civil servants that rehearsing my amendments as if that had not happened would seem futile.
A large number of the amendments arise from uncertainty over the Government’s intentions, so it would be good to have something clear and unequivocal from the Minister that supports the rights of responsibilities of home educators; that celebrates the contribution they make both to the state—they save the state a great deal of money—and to the education of their children; and that requires local authorities to be supportive.
The role of local authorities is crucial here; it is clear that the role they play is vital. There are many instances where people are set on home educating for the wrong reasons or where home educating goes wrong. Looking after the children in those circumstances is hugely important. However, if the relationship between local authorities and home educators is to work, it must be based on trust and mutual appreciation. If you can get that to work, as many local authorities do, you get a strong information flow into the local authority on what is happening; you get really good support for the children involved; and it is much easier for a local authority to focus its efforts on the things that are going wrong.
As it is written—obviously, there is a lot to come in regulation—the Bill gives local authorities huge powers. Just a comma out of place in some detail on the education that you provide for your child and the local authority can tip your child back into school. That is the way it is written. I understand that that is not how it will work in practice, but it has raised considerable concerns in the home education community. Also, in talking to local authorities, I have found that their impression is that the Government’s wish is that they be much stricter on home education and push children back into school wherever possible. These are misapprehensions, I think, but I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on them.
Local authorities are thoroughly oversubscribed and financially stressed by adult social care and special needs. The home education department is usually small. Sometimes people have been pitched into it for the first time and are having to learn their way through it. Sometimes it contains people of supreme intolerance. Portsmouth gets mentioned frequently, but I know that the Minister has had shared with her a letter to home educators from Bristol Council, which shows, I think, a deep lack of understanding of how the relationship between local authorities and home educators should work. We need to come out of this Bill clear ways in which the Department for Education can steer local authorities, help them improve their practices and provide a method of recourse for parents who feel that they are being badly done by by their local authority. I also hope to see a way of celebrating the good practices that go unnoticed; too often, those local authorities that are really doing their job well go unnoticed.
I come now to the amendments in this group. We are looking at a request for information, which is very loosely described and might be interpreted at a really detailed level. What is the child doing for each five minutes of the day? With whom are they interacting? Home education can be a very varied, loose way of educating a child. It is often child-led, even if there is a lot of parental direction in there, and follows no clear, predetermined path. Recording that in the way the Bill seems to ask for would require a daily report being sent by the parent to the local authority. This cannot be what local authorities want to receive. They just are not set up for it. Here, we need something sensible and practical; understanding what that is will be really important. There is certainly an established practice in some local authorities of an annual report, which can vary in length from six to 60 pages and allows a parent to present a clear, consistent picture of the education that their child has been receiving to put everything in context.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, as this is the first time I am speaking in Committee, I declare various unremunerated positions in Gypsy, Traveller and Roma organisations. I wish just very briefly to comment on Amendment 322, on nomadic organisations. I should say that all the evidence I have seen, and many conversations, attest quite firmly to the fact that most Gypsies and Travellers, that small minority who lead a nomadic life, welcome registration and the offer of support from local authorities—although I shall have something to say about that later. This amendment does not correspond to the experience of Gypsies, Travellers, boaters or showmen. I just briefly add that it seems that most of these amendments are at odds with the reality of the situation of most children who are not in school, and with the intentions of the Bill, but I will not prolong the debate at the outset at this stage.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his eloquent and rather moving statement to the Committee about how he sees this. Echoing those important points, in the end this is about relationships, and about children and their needs and relationships. As the noble Lord said, with the Bill there is a real danger that this will be hugely disruptive for local authorities and parents, and in many ways could be a recipe for trouble to come if we get this wrong. But there are ways in which we can get this right and get proportionate reporting around the Bill. So there is a lot to get right here.
I will come back to various of those points later, but the simple point I wanted to make here was in relation to Amendment 238, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which is about the requirement to know which parents are educating, how and for how long. We will come back to that point in various ways in later groups. There are two key points here. One is about safeguarding, where there is an issue with at least one of the parents, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has an amendment on, and there is one about the division of time between parents educating, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has an amendment on.
This whole section needs to be rethought. What do we really need to know? We need to know which parents are taking responsibility, and where they are and how they can be contacted, but it seems that the rest of it is superfluous. I simply make those points in response to Amendment 238.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 234 in particular, to which I have put my name, and, more generally, endorse the views that my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just set out.
I have just begun to engage with home education as a concept and as a community, and it is clear right from the start that the community is very well motivated and, indeed, deeply reflective about education in this country and how it works, and it has a lot of expertise into which government should be trying to tap and learn from rather than regiment and regulate. If it should turn out that the worst happens and my noble friend Lord Lucas is indeed forced to step back from advocating support for this sector, I am sure that I and other noble Lords will be very willing to pick this up and continue the discussion.
I thank the Minister and her team for all the communication that there has been over the summer, as there have been some very comprehensive communications and emails that have been very helpful and will be very useful today.
I want to make just one brief point today, which is relevant to Amendment 234 but also to all those in this group, which is the point about trust. Trust is the way home education works—trust and mutual understanding. In many ways, the Bill as drafted gives huge powers to the Government which appear to be based on a lack of trust and a determination to regulate. They are very detailed and prescriptive and will cause all sorts of practical difficulties, and are based on a misunderstanding about how much of home education actually works.
Now, it is true that some local authorities are not as positively motivated as others. It is certainly true that all are extremely overworked in this area. It is difficult to see what is gained by generating vast amounts of paper and reporting which go into a drawer and are not much looked at.
To conclude, if it is not too late, a rethink in this area would be helpful. There could be a pulling back of some of the prescriptiveness and a better understanding from government—centrally and locally. There could be more support for local authorities and a clearer direction from the Government to get the approach right. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I look back to eight years ago, I think, when I had a very simple Private Member’s Bill, which said that home educators should register. That was it. It was as though I had ignited a bonfire of education, because the online abuse and letters that poured in were just unbelievable.
Together with my noble friend Lord Addington, I, perhaps stupidly, decided to organise a round table to discuss home education with home educators, teacher associations and anybody else who was interested. That was a real learning curve for me. Since that beginning, I have got to know many home educators. In fact, one recently sent me a wonderful, illustrated book on home education. However, when we met at the round table there were pointed and jabbing fingers; it reminded me a bit of the local city council. Nevertheless, we became quite good friends and I understood home education quite well. Since that time, we have all been on a very important journey. We have to ask ourselves why we want to do this. It is for one reason only—for our children and young people. If every home-educated child went to school, the system would not be able to cope.
The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are correct. It is all very well our agreeing legislation, but we must always have at the back of our minds whether it will work. It is important not only to know where our children are and that they are being educated, but that there is a correct relationship between the local authority and the home educator. There are some fantastic examples where local authorities work closely and successfully with home educators to the benefit of both. There are some learning curves where local authorities do not have that good relationship with home educators—where they think that giving the cane and waving the statute is more important than trying to do what is in the best interests of the child.
There are thousands of wonderful home educators, but there are also children who are not being educated but are languishing at home for all sorts of reasons. As I have said, there are children who are being home-educated in a religious setting. This is not about giving them a wide education; it is about them understanding their particular religious texts. To my mind, this is not beneficial for the child as a whole.
I am glad that we have almost got to the stage where we think we should register home-educated children—not least so that we know where they are and can, we hope, make sure that they are safeguarded. I am not sure that having an education portfolio is the same as registering; I am not sure that being a chess grand master entitles you to say, “I do not need to register”; and I am not even sure that teachers with formal educational qualifications should not have to register. That seems bizarre. We live in a society where one of the important words is “equality”—equality of opportunity, whoever and wherever you are.
I hope that, when we continue this journey on Report, we are not just mindful of home educators but—I speak as a local councillor mindful of the capacity issues for local education authorities—that we make sure that local authorities are able to cope with the legislation and that it works, not just for the family and the child but for the local education authority as well.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, ably presented by my noble friend Lord Lucas, seek exemptions from or exceptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school. Rightly, my noble friend stressed the importance of the relationship between the local authority and home-educating parents. As other noble Lords pointed out, the Government need to take great care in this legislation so that the requirements set out in the Bill do not inadvertently damage that relationship and potential trust.
Having said that, I cannot support these amendments and their aim to find exemptions. First, at its simplest, the point of the register is to ensure that a local authority knows which children are not in school and, obviously, the amendments would undermine that. Secondly, one of the key points of the register, as I understand it, is that it would allow home-educating parents who need support from the local authority to access that support. Again, excluding these children would prevent that. Finally, these amendments assume that in these conditions it may indeed be preferable to educate the child at home. Even if this is the case in the majority, if not the vast majority, of cases, it remains reasonable and proportionate to record that that child is not in school.
With regard to Amendments 234 and 238, my noble friend Lord Lucas raised the important point of principle that the information collected should be proportionate, which, in simple terms, means that the local authority needs to actually use that information, as my noble friend said in his opening remarks, rather than just record it. The Government’s proposals for the information collected go a lot further than the legislation we brought forward in 2022. I share the doubts of my noble friend Lord Lucas and other noble Lords as to whether it is all necessary.
Going back to the point about the relationship between the local authority and parents, a good test for this legislation, and one I tried to use when we debated the 2022 Bill, is that the legislation needs to feel fair to parents. There is a risk that the amount of information and detail being requested could feel unfair and damage that relationship with the local authority, which is so important. I hope very much that when the noble Baroness closes, she will be able to reassure the Committee that that is not the case.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wei, Lord Lucas and Lord Crisp, my noble friend Lord Hacking and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking time over the summer to meet my officials. Having the opportunity to discuss in detail with noble Lords how the provisions for children not in school are intended to work in practice was extremely beneficial and instructive. I am giving careful consideration to some of the finer details of the provisions with which noble Lords have indicated that they are not wholly satisfied.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that in government we have worked well and closely with home educators, who are rightly challenging on many of the issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate. Just to be completely clear, we know that the home education community is diverse and varied. Home education can take place in all walks of life, in cities or the countryside, and be delivered by those with professional teaching experience and those without. It often delivers an excellent education to children, but it is important that the registers work as intended. They should not encroach on the ability to home-educate.
I have said previously in these debates and will continue to say that we wholly recognise the right of parents to educate their children outside schools. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, it must be possible for local authorities to identify all children not in school to ensure that they are receiving a full-time, suitable education. That oversight should be underpinned by local authorities engaging positively with home educators. That is why the Bill also places a new duty on local authorities to provide advice and information when requested to do so by parents. The registers should give us a clearer picture of not only how and where children are being educated but also how local authorities engage with and support children not in school and their families. This information will support the department to identify best practice and consider how it can potentially be replicated across authorities to build strong, trusting relationships with parents.
I recognise the point made by several noble Lords that it is important that we ensure that these relationships are maintained and built on the basis of trust and a sense that what is being asked for by the Government is reasonable. We will, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, use this information to support and direct local authorities to ensure that that is happening, not, as I know some people fear, to prevent parents from home-educating, but to make sure that that relationship is based on a recognition of the best interests of children and of the right of parents to educate their children at home as long as they are providing a suitable education in doing that. The department will and has stepped in where local authority practice is wrong or overbearing.
Speaking in particular on the amendments in group one, these amendments seek to limit which children must be registered on local authority children not in school registers and to reduce the mandatory information that is requested from parents for the registers. This group seeks to do that on account of evidence provided by the parents or the circumstances of the child or parents. I will respond first to all the amendments dealing with which children should be included on registers: Amendments 231, 232, 233, 318, 321 and 322. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, a key objective of the registers is to aid local authorities in their existing duty to identify, as far as possible, all children in their areas who are not registered pupils in school and who are not receiving a suitable full-time education. Exempting eligible children from inclusion increases the risk of a local authority failing to identify a child who may be receiving an unsuitable education.
While I do not agree with the amendments, I appreciate the intention behind them, but I am afraid that the logic does not track even in terms of the arguments made by noble Lords. For example, to exempt children of parents with formal teaching qualifications from registration, as per Amendment 233, or children of parents who have submitted a portfolio annually demonstrating suitable education, as per Amendment 231, the local authority would need to know of the children and to record details of their parents, which might be even more cumbersome than the requirements that this legislation is asking for.
Amendments 318 and 322 seek to exempt children from rural areas, unless safeguarding concerns are present, or children from nomadic families as long as education is provided. This would still require the local authority having knowledge of these children in order to make these assessments. A registration system is the obvious solution to collect an appropriate level of information about a child’s circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Whitaker identified.
Amendment 231 seeks exemption for inclusion in the registers should the parent have previously demonstrated suitable education through an annual portfolio, while Amendment 232 seeks exemption if the parent has previously home-educated a child who progressed to university, employment or vocational training. Just because a parent has previously demonstrated suitable education, has previously home-educated a child who progressed to further or higher education, or holds certain qualifications, it does not necessarily follow that the child will receive a suitable education indefinitely or at all. Furthermore, exempting children on the basis of one measure of ability, such as achieving the status of a chess grandmaster, as per Amendment 321, offers little reassurance that the child is in suitable education overall or is safe.
I turn now to the amendments in this grouping concerning the mandatory information that is requested from parents to be held on local authority registers: Amendments 234 and 238. We will, in our debates on later groups, talk further about the nature of this information. The information required of parents is necessary to build an accurate understanding of who is involved in a child’s education and where this education is taking place. Let me be absolutely clear: the only information required to be held on registers is information which is easily available to parents and obtainable by local authorities and which is considered necessary for ascertaining suitability of education and safety of the child. This includes basic information such as the child’s name, date of birth and address, as well as high-level details of education provided by the parent and others. We will go into this in more detail but, to be absolutely clear in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of course this would not require daily, weekly or even monthly reports from parents. That is absolutely not the intention here. We do not believe that this basic information is overly burdensome for parents to provide or for local authorities to request and maintain.
Amendment 234, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would mean that parents would not be under a duty to provide information for registers. We know that many local authorities already maintain registers and that some parents voluntarily provide information for these, but the status quo is not good enough. It is currently too easy for children to slip under the radar. If a child has never attended a school or has recently moved to a new local authority area, for example, the local authority may be unaware that the child is in its area and not attending school. We need to be certain that local authorities are aware of all children not in school in their areas so that they can identify which children are missing education and are therefore in need of support. A parental duty to give information is the only way to achieve this. This requirement is proportionate and brings the process in England and Wales to the same level as that in the majority of other countries. In some cases, it would in fact be much less intrusive and much more supportive of home education than in many other countries.
I hope that noble Lords will permit me a brief digression to clarify a point of confusion—I know that this has been raised by and is concerning parents—regarding the consequence for parents failing to provide information for registers. If a parent does not supply the required information, they are not subject to a fine. Instead, the consequence of failing to provide information is that the local authority may, at its discretion, issue a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the local authority that their child is receiving a suitable education.
As is the case now, should the parent fail to do this and it is expedient for the child to attend school, the local authority must then issue a school attendance order, requiring the child to attend school. If the parent breaches that order and cannot prove in court that the child is being suitably educated, only then will they be found guilty of an offence and could be subject to a fine imposed at the magistrates’ court’s discretion. Again, it is important to reiterate that the school attendance order process that would be used here is an existing process and that the fines for breaching an order are completely avoidable through compliance. With this in mind, the number of families ultimately subject to a fine for breaching an order will be low compared to the overall number of orders issued.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, in particular her words on the relationship with local authorities. I will study that in Hansard and come back to her if I have any problem with it, but my first impression was that it was hugely positive and very helpful. I thank her very much.
She said that the Department for Education has intervened with local authorities. I will ask for a better understanding of how that process works, because it is such an important part of making sure that local authorities that are not in the best place progress to a better one.
I understand the objection to my noble friend’s “do not register” amendments. I was wondering how he would have argued for Mozart—I think Mozart might have appreciated the intervention of a local authority in his education.
I should like to pick the Government up again on how nomadic families are to work with this legislation. Which local authority do they register with? How does that work? This is just so that it is clear. I know it is an item of detail and I will obviously not pursue an amendment on it, but knowing how that works for nomadic families and families not consistently in one place would be very helpful.
The Minister said some very helpful things about requiring high-level information, not every day or even every three months, which comes back to the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about focusing on an annual report. I would love to see that. The Bill does not say that. The Government are relying on their ability in guidance to take what is in the Bill, which is a very detailed, “record every minute” requirement, and say, “Actually, if you give us a report once a year, that will be fine”. Very early on, I sent a message through the department to the Government’s legal draftsman to ask what the limits on this are. How far can guidance go against what is there in the Bill? Do the Government have the power to say in guidance that an annual report would be enough? I would really appreciate an answer on that. I should like to understand where that lies.
Similarly, that applies to things such as, where parents are together, the requirement to say who is providing how much of the education. Again, obviously, that can be dealt with in regulations, but is it within the Government’s power to put that in guidance?
When it comes to the consequences of failure, I am delighted—I thought it was the case that there were no fines involved—that the process is moving towards a school attendance order. In this sort of area, the process is the punishment; it has been tipped into this process. It is about the stress, worry and effort required to fight through that process. Therefore, again, it comes down to the importance of a strong, positive relationship and a well set-up local authority, and to how important all that is to the Bill working.
For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that data collection under section 436B respects rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol 1. It prevents disproportionate interference with family life or educational convictions and upholds privacy and parental choice in home education.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this group concerns data protection and sharing. Obviously, we are dealing here with some very personal data. People want to be sure that it is handled right and not shared with the wrong people. Where families are in the process of breaking up or where abuse is concerned, it is particularly important that the data does not get to the wrong people. By and large, the amendments in this group for which I am responsible are self-explanatory. It would be most helpful for me first to listen to the Minister responding on where the Government find themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about Amendment 254A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I have added my name. I want to spell out what I suspect noble Lords understand fully, which is that there are issues here. In certain cases, where perhaps one parent has been abusive to their child, partner or spouse, it is vital that addresses are not made available to that parent.
Perhaps I could just go back two or three steps and preface my remarks by saying, first, how much I appreciate the warm remarks on home education made by the Minister in opening. They set a much better tone than has tended to come through in this debate. Something else that I omitted to say at the beginning is that my thanks go to the Minister and her officials for the excellent meeting we had. It lasted much of the day and, frankly, they were very open and willing to discuss things; that was very helpful. I do not know how much movement we got out of it—we will see during the course of today—but it was helpful to have that meeting and to understand things clearly.
As all noble Lords have said, there is an issue of balance here between supporting the good people who are providing home education because it is best for their children, or for another good reason, and supporting the missing children who are abused or neglected or have missed out. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made an important intervention on this. We need to get that balance right.
We discussed with officials the issue dealt with in Amendment 254A. It was said that this could be picked up in regulations or whatever, but there needs to be something in the Bill to help parents who are specifically worried about safeguarding. This amendment is probably as simple as it gets in pointing out that where there is a concern about abuse, or an order standing against one parent, this should be handled by an authority in an appropriate fashion.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 267 in my name and in those of the noble Lord, Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, whom I thank for their support.
This amendment mandates local authorities not to keep the information they have on the register after the child has grown up, for two reasons. First, it is not necessary after the age of school education has passed. Secondly, many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma families have a well-founded mistrust of unnecessary scrutiny, targeting and intervention on the part of authorities. This amendment would allay their fears and ease liaison with the registering authority. It may be that discretion should be used in the case of SEND children, perhaps until the age of 25, but that is for discussion later. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will understand the need for this amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 254A, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his comments. As a society, we can be proud that, over the years, we have carefully and proportionately brought in safeguarding procedures which really make a difference to the lives of children and young people. We know that, by and large, our children are safe. Occasionally, we find a gap in the regulations or in the provision, and we come together to try to sort that out.
In a sense, safeguarding information can be shared with parents. This amendment comes out of conversations with a number of organisations that have given thought to how, in some cases, this can be harmful for the child. If there is a safeguarding concern, details can be shared with both parents, but my amendment questions whether it is appropriate if it risks further harm to the child. In a sense, this is a probing amendment, and I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say as it will impact my thoughts when we come to Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group, which, in common with some of the earlier groups, seeks to probe the Government’s position on some important, albeit quite technical issues. These include the right to privacy and family life, as covered in Amendments 235 and 297; the handling of data breaches, covered in Amendments 268, 275 and 375; and data removal, covered in Amendments 267 and 273. Throughout, the House is looking for reassurance and clarity from the Minister as to how these issues will be handled. Amendments 265, 272, 328, Clause 33 stand part and Amendment 504 all relate to data protection. Again, the points about relationships and trust, and families having absolute clarity as to how their data will be protected, who will have access to it and what will be public, are obviously important.
Finally, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, Amendments 236, 236A, 254A—in the noble Lord’s name—266 and 305 relate to the delicate and difficult issues about sharing information in cases where abuse of a child by a parent has either been alleged or confirmed. Again, the more clarity the Minister can bring, the more helpful it would be for the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group concern the sharing and protection of information on the registers. I can completely understand concerns about the collection and processing of data, and I hope to provide in my response some of the reassurances that noble Lords seek. But we must also be clear that we must not make them a barrier to legitimate information sharing. The recording and sharing of relevant information on children can be life-saving and, as we have discussed, children not in school registers will support local authorities to keep accurate records of eligible children, identifying those who require support and facilitating better co-ordination between support services, as well as enabling them to fulfil the requirement to understand where children are receiving education outside school.
Amendment 235, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that local authorities are not required to collect information on their registers that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Our published ECHR memorandum outlines the position on this, and we are confident that the provisions in the Bill are compatible.
I turn to Amendments 236 and 236A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. As with Amendment 238, which I spoke to on the previous group, these amendments seek to place exemptions on the requirement for registers to contain certain information on the child’s parents. I have outlined why that information is vital, but I appreciate that noble Lords have tabled these amendments based on concerns that some parents are estranged from their families for reasons such as domestic abuse. Recognising that concern, we have engaged with organisations that support domestic abuse survivors on our proposals and will continue to do so as part of their implementation.
Organisations like Women’s Aid have long called for the introduction of children not in school registers. Indeed, this is one of the recommendations it has made as part of its Nineteen More Child Homicides report published in June this year. If a parent could pose a risk to the child, it is even more crucial that authorities have this information. Holding information such as where the parent lives and whether they are providing education to the child, as well as time spent in such education, could help the local authority to identify the frequency and nature of the contact the child has with the parent. This could feed into a local authority’s assessment of whether a child is at risk of harm or is likely to be receiving an unsuitable education, so that further action can be taken if needed. Without evidence that a child may be at risk, it is difficult for authorities to intervene.
But I understand the concerns of parents, and I want to respond to that. Just to be clear, parents who have fled domestic abuse should be reassured that they will not be required to seek out the details of the other parent. They need to provide only the information that they know. But I will be clear about how we can ensure that the register will not reveal, for example, the whereabouts of a parent who has escaped abuse. Data protection protocols will help to ensure that all those on the register are safe. Specifically, in cases where a known abuser has made a subject access request regarding their child, the local authority, as data controller, can make determinations, considering the facts of the case, including safeguarding concerns.
I and my colleagues in the other place are clear on the importance of ensuring that all appropriate safeguards can be in place for victims of domestic abuse. We will continue to work with organisations with expertise in domestic abuse to ensure that all necessary protections can be built into the guidance that we will produce.
Linked to this but on a slightly different issue, Amendment 266, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 265, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, concern information from local authority registers being published. Let me be clear that local authorities will not be able to publish from their registers the name or address of an eligible child or their parent or any information that could lead to their identities being deduced. The Bill contains a provision in new Section 436C(5) explicitly preventing it. However, it is important that local authorities can publish information relating to their home education cohorts—in fact, I think that in later groups some noble Lords will be asking for further information along these lines—in terms of numbers, reasons for home education, and demographics. That will aid transparency in terms of how each local authority is undertaking its duties. We will ensure that regulations made in relation to this setting out whether and how registered details may be published will be subject to public consultation, and they will also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 267 in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and Amendment 273 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the destruction of all data in relation to a child held on children not in school registers upon that child turning 18 or re-enrolling in school. I assure noble Lords that data protection laws are clear that data must not be kept longer than necessary and must be retained only when there is a lawful basis. Entries on the register will therefore be deleted prior to a child turning 18 as a child is eligible to be included on the register only if they are of compulsory school age. As my noble friend alluded to, some information may need to be retained on other local authority records for a longer period; for example, a looked-after child remains with their local authority until they are 25, and it is crucial to hold some historical information as part of education and safeguarding inquiries. Current laws already allow this.
Amendment 275, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendments 268 and 375, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to ensure that parents are notified of any data breaches that occur as part of the children not in school measures and are able to claim compensation, and that local authorities are liable for the consequences of breaches. UK GDPR already sets out that a local authority must report a notifiable personal data breach to the Information Commissioner’s Office within 72 hours and to the affected individuals “without undue delay” where there is high risk that they are adversely affected by the breach. Families who have suffered damage as a result have a right to claim compensation from the local authority, which may also face fines or regulatory action.
Amendment 305, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 272 and 328, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict or remove the powers relating to the use and sharing of data on the registers. As I suggested earlier, local authorities and the department need to collate and share register information, often at speed, with relevant persons, to fulfil duties related to the education, safeguarding or welfare of a child. Requiring written parental consent in every case, as Amendment 272 would do, would potentially prevent children receiving support in situations where swift action is vital. New Section 436F inserted by the Bill makes it clear with whom data from the registers may be shared and under which circumstances.
For example, local authorities may share information with those persons and organisations listed in Section 11(1) of the Children Act 2004 if appropriate to do so for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education and welfare of children. These include organisations, such as the NHS, which are a central component of either local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements or national efforts to protect children. If there is information on registers that can aid these organisations in protecting or promoting the welfare of a child, I am sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that it is shared. In relation to Amendment 328, I reassure noble Lords that immigration authorities do not feature in any of these categories.
Amendment 297, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the requirement for out-of-school education providers to provide local authorities with the names, dates of birth and home addresses of children who are attending their provision above a prescribed threshold. We will talk about the provider duty in more detail later but, in effect, this amendment would remove the provider duty, which is, we argue, crucial in supporting local authorities both to identify children who should be on registers but are not and to cross-check records for children already on registers. There is no way for local authorities to achieve this without asking for basic identifying information.
Amendment 504, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would delay the commencement of the children not in school registers until the National Cyber Security Centre or an equivalent body certifies them. The Government already conduct extensive internal and external assurance processes to ensure that systems are safe and secure before launch. To support local authorities in meeting their data protection obligations under the measures, we will issue guidance that promotes best practice for keeping parents’ and children’s information secure.
Finally, I turn to the stand part notice in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would oppose Clause 33 standing part of the Bill. As I have outlined in responding to this group, Clause 33 ensures that the processing of personal information as required or enabled by the Bill does not contravene the Data Protection Act 2018. It promotes the highest standards of data security and transparency. I hope that that provides your Lordships—and parents—with some assurance. I also hope that noble Lords will feel able to agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will withdraw Amendment 235.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I will pick up anything with which I disagree—I did not notice anything —later.
I want to say just one thing on Amendment 504. The Government created this cybersecurity centre—because the risks, the techniques and the availability of those techniques are moving so quickly, particularly with artificial intelligence—so that the best possible expertise is available to government departments. Time and again, though, they do not use it. In a recent case with which I have been dealing, DSIT got a chunk of its vital core code developed in Romania. It is not secure to do that; you do not know what it is doing and who it is doing it for. The way in which devices were secured was not up to scratch either. This resource is there as part of government. It should be used by departments, which cannot in all reason keep up with the latest threat and techniques, to be sure of what they are doing when it comes to security. It really is the best thing that can be done, so I encourage the Minister to get the department to take advantage of that facility.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hacking
“(b) the names and home addresses of the parent or parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to identify the minimum requirement for providing information for the register and ensures that information is only included on parents who have responsibility for educating the child.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, the grouping of these amendments is becoming a bit confusing. This amendment and Amendment 237 are directed to the protection of sexually abused children, but so are Amendment 236A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 254A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will therefore be addressing the problem of protecting sexually abused children at this stage in this group. I did not intervene earlier because I thought it sensible to collect all my words dealing with the same issue together. Before I go any further, I should like to refer to when my noble friend the Minister got to the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this stage of the Committee and kindly mentioned my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords who have participated in this Bill. She also referred to the meetings that have taken place at the Department for Education with her officials and with her colleague the Minister, Stephen Morgan. I wish to express extreme thanks to my noble friend and the officials for their helpfulness. On this Bill, the Government are listening. This has not been exactly a feature of recent Bills, either from the Conservative Benches or my Benches. On this Bill, however, the Government are listening and we are grateful.
My attention was drawn to this problem by a mother who had a serious problem with her husband abusing her son. That kind lady has been very objective and forceful in presenting her case. She spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Frost—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. She also came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I do not know whether she came to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but he has certainly been in contact with her. It has been helpful to have the evidence that she provided. I am not going to identify her, although I should also mention that the Minister himself, Stephen Morgan, met her. My noble friend’s officials also met her and exchanged emails with her. A lot of information has been exchanged, which has been helpful.
In brief, her son was sexually abused by her husband, I think from the age of four. It went on for several years. When the mother found out, she was absolutely horrified and wanted, as do all mothers who face the same situation, the maximum protection. That is what these amendments are trying to do. My submissions on this issue are not based on just one case. I am afraid that a number of cases of sexual abuse of children are undetected, unreported or both. This brings me back to many years ago, when I was a barrister appearing at the Lincoln Assizes. I was involved in a case of incest. The prosecution case against the accused was that he was committing incest on the complainant, who was both his daughter and granddaughter. That illustrates how horrific the problem of sexual abuse can be.
Under these amendments, the protection sought is that the misbehaving husband should not have access to any information, particularly, as my noble friend identified, as to the whereabouts and address of the abused child. He should be entirely separated from that poor child. One can do that in a number of ways —that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment 236A, or by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, in Amendment 237. Amendment 235A was his amendment, not mine, but somehow his name was lost from the Marshalled List. I apologise but I hope he has forgiven me. He is a very forgiving Peer. The position, which is the point I really wanted to establish, is that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is still with the amendment and supportive of it. I did not quite get a nod from him but I will work on that basis because it is a very sensible amendment.
The Minister was quite right—she referred to data protection too—when she said that there is a strict rule in new Section 436C(5) that puts a strong prohibition on the publication of any information in the register and on it being made “accessible to the public”. I keep calling the Minister my learned friend—she is very learned, but I should stick to the correct parliamentary description of her as my noble friend. Anyway, new Section 436C(5) provides a strong prohibition, but of course that means that the officials with access to the register have to be trusted to follow new Section 436C(5).
The lady to whom I just referred, who has been so helpful in our deliberations on this issue, recalls a situation when a husband, who had been convicted of the sexual abuse of his child—actually, in that case it was two girls—had been sent to prison but had rung up to collect information from the register, which was given. The only way that we in this House can properly protect the abused child from being traced by the abusing father is by making sure that the information is not in the register. Of course, if it is not in the register, it cannot be released. I suggest that that is the best approach.
I end by thanking my noble friend again for how she has conducted this entire Bill, with helpfulness, a willingness to listen and, above all, a willingness to work with this House. That is a matter deserving of great congratulations and great thanks. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I must apologise: I should have advised the Committee that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, alluded to, Amendment 237 is in an incorrect place on the Marshalled List—hence my calling Amendment 235A now.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, this is the point at which I will make one of the two main interventions that I propose to make today, on my Amendment 254B. Before I come to that, I will comment on two other amendments. I added my name to Amendment 239, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would leave out the bit about the split between parents of how many hours are provided per week. This seems completely redundant information and is not necessary. I understand the point that the register should include some reference to the fact that parents are providing the education—it is not all being done through a private tutor—but it seems to me that the split is unconvincing.
When the Minister responded, essentially to this point, in an earlier group, she said something about wanting to know the number of hours of education taking place during the week. I may have misinterpreted but I think that is what was said, and it prompts me to ask a question of the noble Baroness. Does she have a number of hours per week that are expected to be covered by education? I should be interested to know if there is some number that the department has in mind.
The second amendment to which I have added my name, Amendment 260, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is about local authorities being able to ask for any other relevant information. That is too much of a catch-all; enough information is already provided. I should be keen to hear her arguments on this and hope that the Minister will accept them.
My main intervention is on Amendment 254B, which concerns the first point at which parents are asked to provide a lot of information about who is providing the education. My amendment picks up the point that this is a large set of possible providers. As written, it could include the occasional organised event. It could include regular visits to the Guides, which is an educational charity, I understand. It could include a rugby club and other such things—anything that has an educational component as the amendment is written. I should say in parentheses here that I have received one reference from a provider of home education, a wildlife trust in the Midlands—I will provide the name to the Minister—which has already written to the people for whom it provides home education, saying that it will put this on hold until the Bill’s impact is clear. Already this wildlife trust—I do not know what level of education it provides—has stopped providing education to home-educated children because of its fears of what the Bill might mean for it in terms of the amount of information the trust has to provide in future.
However, my intervention here concerns the information that the parent or parents need to provide. In our useful discussions with officials, they made it clear that they would put in regulations something that implied that there was a certain amount of time beyond which one-off events would not count, and that events that happened once a week but were only three hours long, or primarily social and recreational, would be taken into account. That is fine in regulations but you need some parameters in the Bill to state:
“The requirement to provide the information set out in subsection (1)(e) only applies to providers which are providing regular education sessions amounting to 10 hours or more a week, which are not primarily social or recreational in nature, and”—
importantly, a point that we have not discussed at all—
“where the information has not already been provided to the authority in other formats, such as an annual report.”
Let me pick up that point about duplication. I am as keen as anyone to weed out fake or failing home-educating parents or arrangements. However, this register is not the way to do it. Form-filling will not catch the diversity of a child’s needs and of educational methods. It is the match between the two that is so vital, particularly as we know that more than half of those who are home educated have special needs of different sorts. This really is not one size fits all, yet the Bill seems to be treating it as though it is. Nor, I believe, will inspection of a child’s work and timetable, without the wider context of a parent’s own assessment of their child’s needs, be an effective method of doing so. The Bill misses out the most important evidence of all: the reality of that particular child and their circumstances. That is why the attempt to use the register to make any meaningful assessment of the quality of education provided is fundamentally flawed. There is an existing alternative.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, he has totally persuaded me that Amendment 254B should be adopted, and I hope the Minister will respond sympathetically to it.
Amendment 257A in my name would require the statutory local registers of children not in school to include whether a child is a young carer, and whether a young carer’s needs assessment has been carried out. It is a revised version of Amendment 251 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Storey. The wording is identical, but by amending new Section 436C(2) rather than new Section 436C(1) it makes it easier for local authorities to comply, because new Section 436C(1) is compulsory with no exceptions, whereas new Section 436C(2) refers to information that the local authority has or might reasonably obtain.
I thank the Minister’s officials for the constructive discussions that they had with the Carers Trust and local carer services on this issue. They led to this new amendment, which I hope improves its chances of acceptance. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for indicating their support for this revised amendment. The amendment is closely related to Amendment 209, which we discussed on 3 July. That would require local authorities to ensure that they have offered a young carer’s needs assessment if they are notified of a pupil who is being withdrawn from school. Amendment 257A, which we debate now, complements that by including such information on the register.
I will not repeat the arguments for improving the protection for young carers, but I mention very briefly the case of Salma, who is caring for her mother, who has physical and mental health issues, and her father, who has physical health issues. She was taken out of school after being subject to bullying. The parents stated that they were home-schooling her while always working towards getting her back into specialist provision. After Salma returned to that specialist provision, she admitted that no home-schooling had taken place and she had been caring around the clock. She had missed one and a half years of school before she was given a permanent placement in that specialist provision. So, repeating what I have said before, I am not saying that a young carer should never be home-educated—I have listened to the powerful arguments from my noble friends and from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—but we need safeguards for the reasons I have just given so that children do not slip off the radar, to use a phrase that the Minister used in an earlier debate.
Related to the previous amendment and this one are delays in carrying out a young carer’s assessment. I raised this in July and the Minister wrote to me on 9 July—I am grateful for that. She told me that the Care Quality Commission is currently assessing how well local authorities perform their relevant duties under the Care Act 2014 and that every local authority will have been assessed by next March. She also strongly urges all local authorities to sign up to the No Wrong Doors for Young Carers initiative. Following the CQC report, I hope that the Government will take strong action against local authorities that are underperforming.
Turning specifically to the amendment, the addition of young carers to the school census is helping to increase the visibility and understanding of young carers within schools and of the impact that caring can have on educational opportunities. For example, we now know that young carers in our schools are missing over a month of their education each year. So including young carers on this register will help ensure that local authorities can comply with their statutory duties under the Children Act 1989, which requires them to take reasonable steps to identify young carers who might be in need of support. By including young carers on the education not in school register, local authorities will be better able to work with families and local young carers services to ensure that caring responsibilities do not mean that the child misses out on education.
Finally, to put it in perspective, there are around 15,000 children who are caring for an alarming 50 hours each week, including over 3,000 children aged between 5 and 9. A further 21,000 children are caring for 20 to 49 hours a week. This has a huge impact on their health and their future life chances. Young carers taking on significant caring responsibilities are 86% less likely than their peers without caring responsibilities to obtain a university degree and 46% less likely to be in employment. Currently, it takes far too long for these young carers to get the support they need—on average three years, with some going more than 10 years without support. That is why this amendment seeks to ensure that this group of children is at the front of our thinking when we are talking about children not in school.
The clause, if amended, would mean that young carer status would be included on the register only if the local authority knows that the child is a young carer or could reasonably obtain such information. But, given that the majority of young carers are not identified, will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that local authorities are complying with their duty to identify young carers outside education?
This simple amendment is an important small step to help ensure that all young carers are able to have the same educational opportunities as their peers, whether they are educated in school or elsewhere.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I added my name to his original amendment. I am afraid I was a bit slow off the mark in adding it to his revised amendment, to which the noble Lord has just spoken. I strongly support it. The noble Lord has set out the case for it extremely well.
I want to emphasise a couple of points. I have always had concerns about young carers being withdrawn from school for home-education. I am concerned that they do not get the necessary breaks from caring responsibilities. We all know how important respite care is for all carers, particularly young ones. Young carers can find themselves taking on ever-increasing levels of caring responsibility. Some of the case studies I have been looking at may well be at the extreme end of the spectrum, but they were talking about young carers who were looking after mum and dad with multiple physical and mental health needs, as well as looking after two or three younger siblings. I really do not know how on earth they can take on that caring responsibility and still ensure that they are educated.
I was also very struck by the statistics mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young. He said that over 15,000 children were caring for 50 hours or more per week. This is not compatible with a child receiving the degree of education that we would all want them to have for their own life chances.
I am also concerned that they will be missing out on the support that can be provided for young carers just because they are not in school. I know that some schools are very good at running groups for young carers, such as peer support, mental health support and additional academic support. It is critical that young carers can still access this kind of support if they need it and are being educated at home.
My main concern is the inappropriate or excessive levels of care that these young people are being asked to take on, because of the feeling of isolation and the emotional impact it has on them. This amendment is essential to protect them. The word the noble Lord, Lord Young, used was “safeguards”. We need strong safeguards if we are to be satisfied that young carers with significant caring responsibilities at home are also being home-educated.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 250 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, whose support I greatly value. This amendment would oblige schools to ask for and record why the child is to receive home-education. This is not done at present and the Department for Education lists the reasons as “unknown” in 42% of cases. The current census estimates that 111,700 children are being home-educated, a 20% rise since last year—hardly an endorsement of what has been going on in some schools. The reasons must be collected to get a better understanding of why children abandon the advantages of school and where feasible, deal with them. We know there are many reasons, some of which, like the bullying which so many Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children endure, must be more effectively and specifically tackled; among those reasons, regrettably, is the desire of some schools to ensure their exam pass rates reach a certain level, thus neglecting the children who most need their education to work. I hope my noble friend the Minister can accept this amendment.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I will contribute very briefly to this debate. I thought that the amendments by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Crisp, showed the difficulty of the Bill in that very different groups of young people are being referred to and both sets of needs need to be met. Therein is the difficulty of getting the legislation right. I very much took the point about children with caring responsibilities and hope that we can take this opportunity to improve that; it is something about which I have been concerned for a while.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am now a member of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Taskforce Advisory Committee. I support amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran, and I support and echo some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, my noble friend Lord Young and others.
To put it in context, we are one of the most permissive countries in the world on home education. We have a strong default presumption that parents should be able to home-educate if they choose and no expectation of tight supervision of that. When I was chief inspector, my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom that parents in this country have. There are countries where home education is simply illegal, and there are many countries where there are quite significant controls on quality.
To take just one example, in Belgium, I recently talked to the Flanders chief inspector. Parents must have their child do the end of primary school test. If they fail, they have one further opportunity; if they do not pass either time, they must be registered in a school. Similarly, there are provisions that if parents repeatedly refuse to allow a local authority employee to visit them at home, the child must be registered at school. I am not advocating these things specifically, simply putting it in context.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, made a important point that this is not a single community. People have referred a number of times to communities. There are communities of what you might characterise as the archetypal home-schoolers, many of them excellent, which include many parents of children with special educational needs of various kinds. They are strongly represented in forums, support groups and lobbying, and they are valuable and important people. There are also many parents who do not take part in these kinds of forums. They are the parents of children in illegal schools where children are nominally home-educated but actually in illegal institutions. They are parents of children who have been essentially forced out of school and off-rolled, who typically have substantial behavioural problems and often significant educational needs, whose parents are disproportionately unlikely to be able to give them a suitable education. There are parents who have simply withdrawn their children to avoid prosecution for non-attendance, and there will always be a few sad exceptional cases, but I will not go into that.
My Ofsted work made me strongly supportive of a register, and I spoke regularly about this over many years, but it is important to be clear about a couple of things. My understanding is that this is not reversing that historic presumption that parents are free to home-educate. So, if we draw out the questions that a register helps local authorities to answer, they are, first: “Is there any reason to think that this child will not be getting a suitable education?” It is not microassuring that, yes, it is definitely suitable; it is slightly the other way. Secondly and similarly, it is not aiming to provide absolute certainty around safeguarding; it is asking, “Are there warnings or flags that suggest that some more work might be needed?” Thirdly, it is about gathering some of the administrative data that central and local government need in order to understand what they need to provide and where rules and incentives need to change.
Quite a lot of what we have heard today has been on the assumption that this is about completely reversing that presumption and moving to microjudgment of the quality of what every parent is doing at every stage. I do not think that that is there, but it would be helpful for it to be explicit that that is not the case. It is important that this does not become just a register of concerns. The requests for exemptions are, sadly, a little misguided because they would narrow this down to being a register of concern. Broadly, it is much clearer if it is simply an objective that the register of children in school plus the register of children not in school adds up to the totality.
I started today intending to support the pragmatic amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran around limiting the information that has to be collected to the things that genuinely support those purposes. What I have heard has led me to think that there is a simplification that the Government might consider that would help to draw together and streamline the thrust of the points that have been made on carers, for example, and those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. It is that if it is information that we would normally expect to be collected in the administrative data section of a school register, it should also be in the not in school register. We are perhaps over- complicating it.
On what is collected about the education itself, I have another point. It is important not to push this too far. To the extent that this register contains subjective information about how children are being educated and about how much time children who are being educated with flexible models spend on maths, English or whatever it might be, it will not work well. Different parents will interpret it very differently. It is the kind of information that it is hard to do well even when constructing a research study. I suggest that there is room to take this back a bit in the light of the purposes I outlined and to commission research studies and sample studies where appropriate.
Similarly, lovely as it would be, the register will never provide all the information that a social work department might need to decide that an investigation is necessary. We need to think about what is straightforward to collect and not subjective to answer and what will help to create the join-up we expect, while not creating an administrative monster with information that turns out to have relatively little value in practice.
That is all I wanted to say. I support this register strongly, as I said, but one iteration further could be done with these provisions to make the register as clean, effective and supportive as it should be.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to follow on; in fact, my noble friend has given an introduction to the comments that I wanted to make in relation to Amendment 260 in the names of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. She mentioned phrases such as “not push it too far” or “take a step back from this”, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, outlined on a previous group that this should be proportionate reporting and information collection, which is really important.
On Amendment 260, we get down to the clauses— I am a lawyer by training and have been in government as a Minister, and I know that government loves such clauses—which require the collection, if it is reasonable to obtain it, of
“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances”
or needs. The only caveat to that is that those should be included in the register
“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.
My first point in relation to that is that that is new paragraph (m), so we have already asked for an awful lot of information before we have our lovely “scoop it all up” clause. But is “characteristics” limited to protected characteristics? That is a separate paragraph in Clause 31, so I suspect it is not. What kinds of characteristics will be asked of families in relation to their children, what kinds of circumstances and what limit on that or on their needs? Obviously, we are not talking about special educational needs because that, again, is somewhere else. It is an enormously wide power for them to be able to reasonably obtain this information.
The only limit on it is
“for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the education or welfare of children”.
Part of that limitation is well known. It apes the Children Act, which says that we are there to promote and protect the safeguarding of the welfare of children. But here it is about the safeguarding of education, a slightly new concept that is there as a key limitation, in the way the paragraph is put together, on what local authorities can ask of families.
So I strongly support Amendment 260 on that kind of “scoop it all up” information about parents in these circumstances, particularly parents who may have, for good reason, withdrawn their children. I can see all kinds of headlines and problems if this kind of information, on such a broad basis, is asked of parents by the local authority. I think that there will be legal challenges to define such a broad clause that the Government seem to want, and that it will be the subject of complaints of intrusion. Although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, obviously this is not to take back that presumption that it is the parents’ right, but such a wide clause that gives the local authority such extensive powers to ask for basically any other information risks changing that presumption, or at the very least it creates a perception for parents that it has been changed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to add to the support given to Amendment 257A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, from all sides of the Committee, and just to emphasise almost the moral case for it.
Earlier on in Committee, when we were talking about the important role of kinship carers, I think we recognised the enormous debt that we as a society owe to them for the burden that they take on and the large number of young children they keep out of the care system, at disproportionate cost financially and to themselves socially and developmentally. The same is true of young children who end up being carers. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, we have 15,000 children caring for 50 hours or more a week, of whom 3,000 are between five and nine years old. If I remember dimly myself at that age, and if I think of my children at that age, the idea of taking on the responsibilities that some of these young carers take on, through no choice of their own, is extraordinary.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I was going to rise very briefly to speak to Amendments 243, 249 and 260 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I added my name, but the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, has put it far better than I possibly could. I was going to talk about concerns about the home-schooling fraternity, but my noble friend Lord Crisp has put it far better than I could. I have also been persuaded by my noble friend Lord Russell and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that Amendment 251 is extremely powerful. I am greatly looking forward to the Minister’s reply to these powerful arguments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I should just say “ditto” to that, should I not? What the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said is hugely important, as is the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the words of my noble friend Lady Spielman. It is unclear how this set of amendments is going to work. It unclear whether they are proportionate. We would like to get a good understanding. We can see that there is a purpose and that they are important, but we have concerns about how the demands of this Bill fit with reality and are going to work in particular circumstances. I will not go into the detail of the amendments that I have in that space—I will wait for the Minister’s reply—but I will pick up on some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Wei on his amendments. Amendment 245 provides that, if a private tutor teaches online and never sees the child in their home, there should be no need for that tutor to supply a private address. There are other aspects. It appears that a company has to provide details of all the people it employs. What happens with online companies where you are not interfacing with anyone at any obvious location but are just interfacing with the software? It is really hard to read what you are supposed to produce and why it is reasonable to produce it.
Amendment 248 highlights the absurdity of trying to quantify every minute. Many parents rightly say that their children learn continuously through conversation, trips and hobbies, without rigid slots. Precise time-logging is trying to force home education into a classroom straitjacket.
Amendment 260 and, in particular, Amendment 261, which my noble friend Lord Frost has supported, seek to address what is breathtakingly open-ended stuff. What is required here and why? What is the underlying purpose being served? We have to be careful about going in for open-ended data collection. Those of us who have been here for a while will remember what happened after we passed RIPA, and the way in which local authorities started using it to find out parents who might be cheating when it came to saying what their address was in school applications. Anything that is collected under such a register does not just sit quietly in a database; it becomes available throughout government and will be swept up into the profiling systems used by the police and the security authorities.
We know from history and from the work of those such as Professor Eileen Munro that these systems tend to record deficits, not strengths, and to build up negative pictures of people. This results in children from black and other ethnic minorities being racially profiled as being bad. People worry about them and so something appears in the database, and then they are seen as a problem. That information will appear everywhere that the authorities look them up. We need to be really careful about how we allow information to be collected.
I do not see any practical provision that would allow anyone to know what is on the register or to correct what is on it. There must be some process for making it accurate when the local authority has added stuff of its own volition—it does not have to tell anyone that it has done so, and the information might be completely daft and inaccurate. There is no provision for how information should be assessed and removed. We need to look carefully at this. Dr Stephen Crossley’s work on the troubled families programme illustrates that this leads to intrusive interventions justified by mass data trawling and families being
“bullied to no good effect”,
with little evidence of positive outcomes.
In this area, we should legislate with humility about what the state can know and manage and about what is useful and practical. We should be careful about turning supportive families into defensive ones, educational flourishing into compliance anxiety, or safeguarding into a byword for intrusive bureaucracy.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this group is about gathering information, and I am struck by certain things. Are we collecting the right type of information? Are we ignoring other information?
I was particularly struck by the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which seeks to include on the register why the child is being home-educated. That would be a useful addition, though I am fully aware that others are saying that we might get a sea of information that ignores the key reason. As somebody who comes at home-education from a special educational needs background, I am familiar with lots of people who have removed their children from school because the school simply did not have the capacity to teach them accurately; teachers are trained to teach those who more closely conform to the norm and these children’s learning patterns do not correlate with that.
The same will be true about the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, when she said that blocks of time sitting down and studying is what education is. This is the type of education that has failed that group. For instance, many schools say, “We are going to give them extra help”. If you do not give them the right help, for this group, because the learning patterns are different, it still will not work. There are lots of little things in here that I would like the Minister to start to clear up. Too much information and the wrong sort will not help.
Even then, there are certain other bits that probably should be there. Are we going to review this periodically? Are we trying to get a feel of it? If we do not do so, there is a danger that we overload. But the register should be there because every child—it comes back to this—is entitled to an education. As was movingly put and supported by my noble friend Lady Tyler, who is a carer, that child is entitled to some support. Carers are entitled to function as an adult in the outside world after they have finished their caring duties—indeed, if they ever finish them. If we do not get away from that, I should like to know a little more on how we are going to use this information. It is a difficult subject, and I do not envy the Minister when she comes to answer on this group, but it is one we are entitled to extract the information from.
There are lots of situations here where we need to get an approach more than we need to get the detail—something that says whether it will be flexible enough. Is it going to understand the types of situations involved? We have heard they are variable, and anybody who has looked at this knew they were variable. So I look forward to the Minister’s reply and do not envy her her task.
Lord Storey (LD)
I have listened to Members talk on all these amendments, and it raised some thoughts in my mind, which I just want to mention before dealing with the amendments. One of the things that we will perhaps appreciate even more as a result of having a register is that, never mind home education, there are currently 100,000 children missing. They are not in home education or schools but are missing. I hope that when we have established—if we establish—a register for home-educated children, we will know the exact number of missing children and have a similar opportunity to work out how we do something about it. It is one of the highest levels in western Europe. That is my first thought.
My second thought is that we constantly hear from schools about the workload that teachers have to have, and maybe some of the discussions about what we are requiring of home educators in terms of the information from them would be music to teachers’ ears as well. In my days as a probationary teacher in my first school, I remember that the head did not require me to keep any records at all. He trusted me as a teacher. There was a single school syllabus and you just got on with it. After five years, I moved on to my second school. It was a huge culture shock because the head teacher demanded that we all had our record books and that we wrote down in great detail a paragraph for every subject from maths, literacy and numeracy right through to technology on what we were doing in that week. Perhaps this discussion also relates to issues for schools as well. Each of these amendments has important things to say. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, was absolutely right to ask, what in these amendments adds value and what adds little value?
Sometimes it is not in plain sight. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, dismissed Amendment 244 as more bureaucracy. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, did not get up. His later Amendment 333ZA is about safeguarding. I do not think that many parents know that, currently, under UK law, an individual barred from working with children due to safeguarding risks or serious offences—including imprisonment—can legally offer one-to-one tuition to children when hired directly by the provider. So the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which seeks to avoid having to provide details of staff at, for example, online schools, is a mistake. We should know the details of individuals who are not parents and who come into schools to do tutoring. That is hugely important.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief and focus on my own amendments in this group as I know that we have a very ambitious target to complete today; that noble Lords came in early to do this; and that we have had a well-informed debate already. My Amendments 239, 243, 249 and 260 were supported and elegantly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, with support from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
Amendment 239 would remove the requirement to specify the time spent by each parent educating their child, which was described by your Lordships as potentially redundant information.
Amendment 243 would set a minimum threshold of six hours weekly to avoid parents having to record every piano lesson and burdening local authorities with a volume of information that they cannot realistically assess. It has many similarities to Amendment 254B. I would not quibble with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, as his amendment was very well drafted, but the spirits of the two amendments have much in common.
Amendment 249 would exclude weekend and holiday activities so that we bring home-educated children into line with those at school, where we would not dream of asking how they spend their weekends and holidays. Again, we do not want every visit to the Royal Institution —however fascinating—or every swimming lesson being shared with the local authority.
Finally, Amendment 260—the “scoop it all up” amendment, as my noble friend Lady Berridge described it—seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require any additional information that they see fit to be included in the register. This is an important point of principle because it leaves the door completely open for a future Secretary of State to behave in a way that many of your Lordships might consider unreasonable and unfair. It is excessive—belt and braces—and the Minister may want to reconsider it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group—interestingly, with some rather different perspectives on the nature of the extent to which information should be included on the register. Let me deal with the range of points, I hope, as reassuringly and informatively as I can.
Amendment 235A was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hacking, although it seems that it had several parents—I will try to respond to the principles of it—and Amendment 239 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments would mean that registers would be required to contain the names and addresses of only the parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child, rather than details of all parents of the child. Parents would also not need to provide information on how much time their child spends receiving education from each parent.
As I said in relation to Amendment 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reason why both parents’ details are needed is because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education for their child. This remains the case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and is instead securing other providers to do so. Although I understand the intention behind these amendments, I worry that they would result in local authorities being unable to obtain necessary information.
My noble friend Lord Hacking gave a harrowing example in relation to access to information on the registers. I had hoped that my comments in our debate on the previous group had given some assurances around the control of and requirements for confidentiality around the register, which will provide some reassurance on that. Additionally, I am concerned that Amendment 239 would make it more difficult for local authorities to identify children who may not be receiving a suitable full-time education. Without having the time that a parent spends educating their child on the registers, how are local authorities to know whether the six hours that a child spends at a supplementary school each week is just part of their education or their whole education?
In relation to Amendment 235A, what if no parent claims responsibility for the education of the child? Unfortunately, we must face the reality that some children in England and Wales are receiving no education at all from their parents or from anybody else. Where this is the case, how can local authorities even begin to intervene if they are missing basic information, such as an up-to-date address for both parents?
Amendments 240, 241 and 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to restrict or remove completely the requirement on parents to provide information on the amount of time their child spends receiving education from individuals other than the parent. I will come back in a moment to the point about hours and time, raised—appropriately—by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Morris. But it is important that local authorities understand whether other persons are involved in the education of the child. This, alongside information on for how much time a child is educated by their parent, will support the authority to establish whether education is full-time or not and to fulfil their existing duty to identify children missing education. This is an important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also brought to our attention.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Will the Minister answer my supplementary question about whether the department or she have in mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that they are trying to get to through this process?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I said I will come to that—I am coming to it. I will also answer the other point about the annual report.
Once again, on this, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet my officials and to outline in detail their concerns about the nature of the information that we are requesting. I understand the concern not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may well involve, the range of different organisations that might be contributing to it and the burdens that might be placed. I reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points raised.
Amendment 253, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of for which activities parents must provide information on the registers. I anticipate that the noble Lord tabled this amendment to reduce parental burden, but it will actually do the reverse. It would bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information, as any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education. It is not the policy intention that registers will need to contain information on such a wide range of activities. The accepted definition of “education” is that it should contain elements of supervision and instruction that work towards defined objectives. This is supported by case law.
I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the burden that the duty to provide information on a child’s education provision places on parents and local authorities. We will ensure that those burdens are kept as low as possible. Parents will not be required to give details on non-educational activities, for example, and we will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and, obviously, consult on the details.
Amendments 243 and 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 254B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide information on. They set a threshold so that parents need to provide information only on organisations that offer more than six or 10 hours of education a week, that educate their child during the school day, or that are one-off or largely social and recreational activities. Although I appreciate that these amendments seek to reduce burdens on parents, the exemptions would potentially leave large gaps in the overall picture of a child’s education. This is particularly true if a child is attending multiple providers or does not follow the school timetable. In relation to Amendment 254B, as I mentioned, we will make it clear in statutory guidance that parents will not be expected to give details of non-educational activities for the register.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting my noble friend in her very helpful answer. My amendment would require that schools get this information so that they can learn how they could educate children better. Of course, it is excellent that the local authorities have it, but should not schools have it too?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I understand the point my noble friend makes. When children’s parents ask for their child to be taken off the roll of a school, which of course is absolutely their right, and the school should do that, it should also, as my noble friend says, reflect on the reasons why the parents are wanting to home educate that child. More broadly, in policy terms, I think we all need to reflect on the points made by my noble friend and others about where the reason is less a positive decision about home education and more a concern about provision for children with special educational needs or otherwise. I think my noble friend is aware that the department already collects information on reasons for home education, but, as she has highlighted, there are gaps in the data. That is why the Bill already allows for this information to be prescribed for inclusion.
For example, recording whether a child is a young carer could be prescribed under new Section 436C(2)(m) of the Education Act,
“any other information about the child’s characteristics, circumstances, needs or interactions with a local authority”.
If prescribed, local authorities will need to record this information if they have it or can reasonably obtain it. We will consult on the content of these regulations, and they will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope that this will help to ensure that the information prescribed for inclusion in local authority registers is appropriate and useful. However, it is necessary that the information outlined in the noble Lord’s and my noble friend’s amendments remains voluntary for parents to provide. For some parents, the reason they have chosen to home-educate is deeply personal. Requiring it could cause parents to try to avoid registration altogether, making it more difficult for local authorities to identify and support those children who need it.
Amendments 260 and 261 in some ways reverse the argument being made in the previous two amendments, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. These amendments aim to restrict any further information being prescribed for inclusion or recording by local authorities on their registers other than that which is set out in the Bill. To be clear, the purpose of these powers is to ensure that local authorities can include useful information in their registers that has not been explicitly mentioned in primary legislation or prescribed through regulations. It will allow that information to be recorded. We do not want local authorities prevented from making their registers a productive tool due to a lack of flexibility but, just to reiterate once again—
Baroness Barran (Con)
Very briefly, in new Section 436C(3) local authorities already have the power in legislation to include,
“any other information the local authority considers appropriate”.
My Amendment 260 limits the power of the Secretary of State to expand it in any way that the Secretary of State sees appropriate.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will come back to the noble Baroness about whether that provides the flexibility I am arguing potentially needs to be in the Bill. The fear is that, as several noble Lords have argued, there are arguments for the inclusion of information that could be very helpful in identifying whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and, furthermore, what support it is possible to provide and should be provided for those children. We would not want to reduce the usefulness of the registers due to that lack of flexibility.
The point I was going to come on to, which I think is important, is that I must stress that parents are under no obligation to provide any further information, even if local authorities ask for it. I think there has been concern by some parents about the extent to which they will be expected to provide that information. That is not the case; it is, as several noble Lords have rightly argued, simply about how we can ensure that these registers are effective and useful while being as unburdensome as possible. That is what we are all striving to achieve here. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this point.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I shall pick up on a couple of points that the Minister made, I think this would be a very interesting point—
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think this is in order. We have heard from the Minister, and now it is for the person who moved their amendment—
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this is Committee. You can have as much backwards and forwards as you wish. That is basic Committee rules.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I am advised that it is unusual—very unusual. Could the noble Lord keep his contributions exceptionally brief? Many other noble Lords intervened on the Minister at the pertinent points during her speech. It really is now the time for the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. The noble Lord’s Front Bench is agreeing with me.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, having been in this House for 30-plus years, no—you listen to the Minister, understand what they are saying, and perhaps that requires some further questioning. On the business of interrupting the Minister in the middle of her speech when you have not heard the full speech, I agree that it is relatively modern but it is clear that Committee is a conversation, and the place where that is restricted is on Report. I do not intend to be long but want to ask a short question. This is what Committee is. It is not, “Before the Minister sits down” but the basic process of Committee. I will take the advice of the clerks over lunch.
I make the point here: the noble Baroness is saying that she will put things in guidance. This is a good illustration of wanting to understand the limitations of the guidance. Can guidance definitively define a term in the Bill, such as “receiving education”, which is not defined in the Bill, in a way that is legally protected? Can guidance go against those terms? The Bill clearly says that everything must be recorded. The noble Baroness is saying, “No, only some stuff needs to be recorded”. Is there power in guidance to do that? Otherwise, the structure of the Bill needs adjustment. Also, I encourage her, if she does not want to go the whole way that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does, at least to make it clear, probably in guidance, that doing this in an annual report is an option. Otherwise, the Bill is saying that it should be done within 15 days.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a good debate, as my noble friend recorded in her remarks, and it has now gone on for over one and a half hours. I have always been a supporter of registration, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, was wise to remind us of the large absenteeism of children who are not receiving any education at all.
I make a request of the Minister on only two points. First, after the productive discussions we have had with her officials, and indeed with her colleague Stephen Morgan—I hope we have persuaded her and her officials of the important amendments that the Government could make following those discussions. I put in the request therefore to see the drafts of those amendments before we go to Report. It would be helpful and enable us to know what to do on Report.
My second comment arises out of Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, and Amendment 254 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. We heard the replies of the Minister on those amendments. The reason for me drawing attention to them is that they were both valuable and should be given close consideration. The Minister replied that we can clear it all up in provided statutory guidance. I have always been rather nervous about leaving things to the guidance notes after the Bill because the terms of the Bill are those that the nation has to follow. One is worried about what statutory guidance will say and how it will change the application of the Bill. But that said, I withdraw my amendment and thank all noble Lords for the now over one and a half hours of debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Civil Service: Interns
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn
To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will assess whether young people are from a lower socio-economic background when recruiting to the Civil Service fast stream summer internship programme.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
The refocused Civil Service summer internship scheme will give talented undergraduates from lower socioeconomic backgrounds the opportunity to see what a career in the Civil Service is like. We will assess eligibility for the summer internship scheme based on parental occupation at the age of 14. The Social Mobility Commission identifies this as the most accurate measure of socioeconomic background.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, both the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and the Civil Service Commission’s recruitment principles make it clear that a person’s selection for work in the Civil Service must be on merit, on the basis of fair and open competition. These rules ensure that the Civil Service can recruit a substantial range of talent from all backgrounds. The changes proposed by the Government to the summer internship programme would allow the child of a mechanic, an electrician or even possibly a toolmaker to apply but discriminate against the child of a roofer, a taxi driver or a nurse, who would be deemed ineligible. Quite apart from this dramatically reducing the range of talent, does the noble Baroness really believe that this is still a fair, open and, indeed, sensible process?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness will not be at all surprised that I believe this to be appropriate, fair and open. She raises a crucial point at the heart of this issue: it is not about permanent positions in the Civil Service. All the statutes that she referred to continue to apply. This is about how we ensure that those people from all classes who have talent and ability have access. We are talking about 200 people a year getting access to an internship programme, one of several that are run by the Civil Service —never mind others that are run by the wider public service—to make sure that we do have a meritocracy. The noble Baroness will be aware that the previous Government operated a similar scheme, which increased the number of disabled people and those from minority ethnic backgrounds but failed those people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. In fact, the numbers fell, which is why we are trying to increase them now.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the First Civil Service Commissioner. It is the Civil Service Commission’s statutory duty to ensure that entry is based on merit and is open and fair. However, as the Minister has outlined, this is an internship that leads to a process of being able to proceed to the Fast Stream Assessment Centre. I therefore ask the Minister what plans she has to assess the percentage of those who are successful and how that compares with other measures to ensure that this exercise serves the purpose that it is intended to.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question and for her work in this area. She will be aware that the fast-track internship programme started in 2000 and has had many different iterations, and therefore there are well-established assessment processes in place to make sure that changes work effectively. With regard to how we are doing it, we are adopting this scheme through our test-and-learn approach within the Cabinet Office to make sure that if we do not believe it is working then we will change it. We will be using the criteria that have previously been used, which is why we are using the definition I cited. That is how I can tell your Lordships that in 2022 the internship scheme had people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds at a level of 33% of applications, but that fell to 19.7% and now has fallen even further at this point. We have the data to demonstrate why we need to do this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister reminding us that the original scheme had a diversity element, which was abolished by the Conservative Government in 2023 in a rather Trumpian attack on the whole idea of diversity. Does the Minister recall that when Oxford and Cambridge introduced similar diversity schemes for children from deprived backgrounds in poorer state schools there was an enormous amount of criticism? I was on the staff of Oxford University at the time and remember being almost physically assaulted. After 30 years, these are widely accepted to have brought a number of extremely bright children from poor backgrounds up into very successful academic, administrative and other careers, and I think this scheme is likely to have the same sort of effect.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very good point. That is exactly what we are trying to do. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have had extraordinary opportunities. I am the first one in my family to have gone to university and yet I find myself in your Lordships’ House. Some of us have benefited hugely from similar schemes; this is making sure that there is as wide an opportunity as possible. The noble Lord is right, but he should also be aware that still a majority of people who end up on the fast track have been to Oxbridge.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, on this side of the House, we will welcome any initiative that helps kick the door open for young people from working-class backgrounds who, by the way, have plenty of merit but have been denied opportunities and face real barriers. We also know that at the top of the Civil Service the class make-up at senior levels has barely changed over decades. Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what the Government will do to ensure that those interns who are successful end up climbing that ladder and reaching the top, achieving their dreams?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness gets to the nub of why we have decided to change it. This is about making sure that the people who serve our country reflect our country, based on merit, talent and ability and not where they came from. We want that to be reflected throughout the Civil Service. We also need to make sure that people want to join the Civil Service. Noble Lords will be delighted, as I am, to know that the number of people applying for these internship schemes and for the fast track has increased by 65% in the last 12 months. I think that reflects a slightly different approach from our Civil Service.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the biggest contribution to social diversity in the Civil Service would be to create genuine parity of esteem between the so-called policy profession and the professions in the Civil Service to do with implementation—procurement, finance, and so on? Policy officials are more than twice as likely to hold senior Civil Service status and overwhelmingly likely to achieve the top jobs in the Civil Service, and until that white collar/blue collar distinction is removed, all her efforts are likely to be in vain.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point and one that I will reflect on and go back to officials to discuss. As someone who used to represent the electricians and engineering union, I agree that parity between white and blue collar is always for the best.
Baroness Gray of Tottenham (Lab)
My Lords, as a former civil servant from the most working-class of backgrounds, while I am sure there are very good intentions here, I would have found it really difficult when I joined the Civil Service to not have been exposed to a wider group; I learned so much from that. I would like to know what the evidence base is for reaching this conclusion as I think there are good intentions but there are other ways that the Civil Service can be opened up as well.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I rarely wish to disagree with my noble friend, but in this instance I do. Obviously, she has huge experience, but this is one of a series of measures the Government are taking to make sure that access to the Civil Service and our wider public service as an employer is based on talent and ability, as I have said. This is not about stopping the Civil Service being a meritocracy; it is about ensuring that the meritocracy is available to everyone regardless of where they were born.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, previous Government Ministers made a point of making sure that the diversity which has been referred to included moving Civil Service departments to different regions of the country. Does the Minister agree that in the intern programme we also ought to reflect the diversity of different parts of our nation as opposed to the other elements she has referred to?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right; as someone who spends their time in Stoke-on-Trent, I think that everybody and every government department should be based in my city. Noble Lords are all more than welcome to visit. Regarding the specifics, while this internship scheme is based predominantly in London, Manchester and Birmingham, the policy internship scheme— I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Maude—within the Civil Service is based in our Sheffield campus to expand opportunity and to make sure that we have geographic reach.
Friendly Wifi Certification
Baroness Thornton
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what plans Parliament has, if any, to apply for Friendly WiFi certification.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, Friendly WiFi provides certification showing that public wifi meets essential safety standards by filtering harmful content. Parliament places the upmost importance on ensuring the online safety of all who use its wifi. Given that the highest level of filtering and blocking technology is in place across all our corporate wifi services, I am informed that Parliament has no plans to apply for this certification.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for that Answer. This scheme is a kitemark, of which there are several on the parliamentary website. This shows that the 80,000 children who access the Parliamentary Estate will not be able to access or see age-inappropriate material. Of course, our Parliament completely complies with this certification. My frustration on this Question—which I have been addressing for three years now—is that, if local authorities such as North Yorkshire County Council, Newcastle City Council and many others, and major retails such as Ikea and Starbucks, and the Tate and major providers of public transport, can all see the importance of this scheme, why would Parliament not want to be seen to sponsor and help to promote a national scheme which is about improving online child safety? I wonder if this House might be able to nudge this along.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, it is my understanding that Friendly WiFi certification is designed to reassure the users of publicly advertised wifi networks that essential safety standards are met and harmful content is blocked. It was intended primarily for retailers, hotels and transport companies, which advertise their wifi in this way. Parliament and government departments do not widely promote their wifi networks in the way that the universities, libraries and retailers mentioned do. The primary intention of the parliamentary wifi is to support visitors to the estate who are attending or supporting parliamentary business.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the House authorities can already block access to inappropriate sites? When I was in the other place, my opposite number the Australian Chief Whip presented me with a 12-foot bullwhip, and the Ministerial Code required me to find out its value. When my private office went online to try to find its value, they were blocked for accessing inappropriate adult material.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I think the noble Lord has dealt with why the Parliamentary Digital Service believes that we have the highest level possible, both in this area and in cyber defence. Parliament has a guest network that can be accessed by visitors and members of staff on their personal devices; there is a separate wifi for parliamentary devices. Visitors logging on to the guest wifi have to agree to the terms and conditions of use, which clearly state that inappropriate material is blocked.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, now that another George has asked a terrifically funny question, may I ask a serious one for a change? When any of these changes, ideas and alterations around the House are introduced, the last people to find out about them are the Members. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker give an assurance that he and all his colleagues will make sure that there is first a full consultation with Members before there are any changes made to the arrangements around the House?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, clearly in general terms, and particularly as this is so much a self-regulating House, we do need to ensure that the authorities are working with Members. I can think of a number of recent issues that have drawn great concern, not only from those involved in governance but from the House more generally. I take the noble Lord’s question very seriously, because we all have a duty to work together to make sure that we get the best results for the best working of this very important House of Lords.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s lead in asking a serious question. Having a fast and reliable wifi service in Parliament is vital for us to carry out our parliamentary duties but also for visitors in particular to have a safe and productive experience when they visit Parliament. Can the Senior Deputy Speaker reassure the House that our systems are entirely secure? When I was sanctioned by the Russian Government, I was grateful for the proactive work and advice on cybersecurity from the Parliamentary Digital Service and Parliamentary Security Department. In this heightened time of cyberattacks, can the Senior Deputy Speaker assure us that our systems have both entirely robust mechanisms and contingency arrangements for the very valid worries of serious cyberattacks from Russia and many other countries like it?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Lord raises another very important issue. Parliament already has extremely strong cyber defences beyond filtering and blocking technology. Parliament is clearly a high-profile target that is under cyberattack every minute of the day, and our specialised cyber defences protect against these. I should also say that the filtering software in place to ensure safe wifi across Parliament categorises new content continuously as it comes online to ensure ongoing protection.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, when I asked my noble friend about the background to this question, I was both puzzled and quite surprised by the answer and information that she gave me, given the number of public bodies and others that have signed up to this scheme. Although I appreciate the points made about the quality of the techniques that we currently have, surely it is in the interests of children that it can be perceived that Parliament is supporting a scheme that is of much wider applicability than just to us. Could the Senior Deputy Speaker say that it is surely to the advantage of Parliament and the wider public to show that the institution of Parliament is promoting this scheme?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
My Lords, again, it was the Prime Minister of the day who forwarded and promoted this scheme. As I say, my understanding is that the Friendly WiFi scheme is primarily directed at retailers, hotels and transport companies—all the areas I have mentioned—specifically because of the access to wifi in that regard, whereas visitors logging on to our guest wifi have to agree to the terms and conditions of use, which clearly state that inappropriate material is blocked. The protection of children is clearly essential; that is why anyone logging on realises immediately that inappropriate material will be blocked.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, will the Senior Deputy Speaker pass on to the officials in the PDS our gratitude for providing a really effective system that keeps us safe, as well as the very effective helpline service?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
The noble Earl makes a very generous point. I had a meeting with the managing director of the Parliamentary Digital Service yesterday, and one thing that he particularly said to me was that it is in its mission to ensure that the workforce has the right technical skills to deliver the services that Members and the wider parliamentary community rely on for efficiency and effectiveness.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, if Parliament is not going to apply for this Friendly Wifi certification, could the Senior Deputy Speaker use some of the time that is now available to try to ensure that every single Member of your Lordships’ House has an effective working landline delivered to their desks throughout the building? At present, the landline situation in many buildings, particularly in Millbank, is absolutely disgraceful.
The Senior Deputy Speaker
I have to say that this is one of the areas of concern that I pick up constantly. I am assured that work is in progress to ensure that we have a telephone that we can pick up and put a call through on, and it will work.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, while we are on the subject of provisions in this place, may I express the hope that at last the front door is more family-friendly than it used to be? I have also heard that we are now planning another potentially traumatic change in that area in relocating and transforming the bag security search. If that is the case, may I follow up on the characteristically serious question from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and ask: are we going to be consulted about it, is there such a plan, what are the costs and budget involved, and when will we hear about it?
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Perhaps I should be formal and say that the Companion is very clear about asking supplementary questions that do not engage the main Question. However, I will say on this occasion in good will that I spent 10 minutes with the Yeoman Usher this morning looking at the door, ensuring that noble Lords and their visitors were able to enter and exit without due alarm. However, I use this opportunity to say that it is clear that we need to work with noble Lords to ensure that all in the parliamentary community are safe. I have picked up on the point that the noble Lord makes, and I shall make sure that there is, as always, proper consultation, if it is the case that there are going to be elements of security matters that affect the House. This is an issue on which, if we had our time again, we should have worked far more closely with noble Lords on ensuring that important security issues are properly discussed—mindful of the sensitivity of those issues because, clearly, we have adversaries who wish us ill. I take the noble Lord’s point very seriously and will report back to him.
Public Order Legislation
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chakrabarti
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the legislation around public order to consider its clarity, efficacy and compliance with fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, post-legislative scrutiny of the Public Order Act 2023 began in May 2025. It will assess how the Act operates in practice. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 will undergo similar post-legislative scrutiny between April 2025 and April 2027.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful as always to my noble and learned friend—my almost learned friend—the Minister for that Answer, but the issue is about more than one statute. Indeed, the common law and statute law in this sensitive area has mushroomed under Governments of all persuasions in recent years. Given the summer that we have just had, and given the challenges to both freedom of expression and public order, is it not time that there was an overarching review of all the law in this area to examine not just adequacy and coherence but public and police understanding of this sensitive area of the law?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. As I have just said, legislation is kept under review at all times. We have legislation coming before this House very shortly in the Crime and Policing Bill that will add other measures to the policing of protests. The policing of protests is most definitely a matter for the police, and the freedom to protest and freedom of expression are extremely important. She raises a sensible suggestion to look at how we can ensure that the police and the public understand where the barriers are. I hope that we can reflect on what has happened at any protest and ensure that the right to protest is central but that the right to do so in a peaceful, orderly way is also central. Those are two basic tenets that would be self-evident and central to any review she suggests.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that Sections 12 and 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 need amendment. To sit in a square and hold a placard is not an obvious act of terrorism. To arrest and prosecute such people is an infringement of the right to free speech and dissent. What needs to be caught are acts of definite terrorism—that is to say, acts which further that crime.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If the noble Viscount is referring to recent actions relating to Palestine Action, which I believe he is, he will remember that the House of Commons voted 385 to 26 only on 23 June and this House voted 144 to 16 only on 3 July to put in place measures to proscribe Palestine Action. One of the reasons for proscription was to ensure that people cannot support that organisation because of advice we were given about the levels of terrorist activity. The police are currently enforcing that legislation for those holding a placard in Parliament Square saying, “I support Palestine Action”. It is important that, in a couple of months, we look at how the legislation has progressed. By that I mean that there will be published statistics on the number of arrests, the number of charges and the number of convictions. I suggest this House awaits that information and remembers the reasons why, at this Dispatch Box and in the House of Commons, Ministers stood up and asked for that proscription order, overwhelmingly supported by both Houses.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to the Minister talk about the reviews he intends to have on the legislation, but there is serious concern in the country about the erosion of the right to free speech. That is demonstrated by the hundreds of people who have turned out simply to express their opinion about the situation in Palestine. They do not want to commit acts of violence. They believe that our country has always cherished its right to free speech. So although His Majesty’s Government intend to have reviews, this issue is bringing the law into disrepute because so much police time is being used in processing the hundreds of people who are arrested in situations which are, as the noble Viscount said, questionable. What can the Government do short of two years to ensure that our democratic right to free speech is protected?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the rights to free speech, to protest, and to make a view known about Palestine or Israel, or any other issue before the House, are central to the democratic rights that we all have as citizens. This House, with the other House, made a decision to proscribe Palestine Action. That does not mean that people cannot protest about the issue of Palestine or support or condemn Israel—it does not mean any of that. It means that Palestine Action has been deemed, on advice to Ministers, an organisation that goes beyond issues of protest and of criminal damage to organise activities which are potentially in the sphere of terrorist activity. I say to the noble Baroness: protest about Palestine, protest about Israel, protest any way you like—wave a flag, hold a placard—but supporting Palestine Action under the terms of the proscription order in this House and in the House of Commons, overwhelmingly passed, deserves to have action taken. That is why the police are upholding that legislation currently.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, a recent report by Policy Exchange has highlighted the chaotic nature of the application of the law regarding unfair and disproportionate disruption caused by protesters as a result of the Ziegler ruling by the Supreme Court. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to reform the law of public protest so that prosecutors do not need to prove that a conviction would not be disproportionate interference in convention rights, and so reconcile the problems caused by the Ziegler ruling?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord has raised an extremely important point. I do not want to answer it directly at the Dispatch Box now; I will need to reflect on the issues he has raised. I hope he will understand that. I will get back to him in writing so that there is clarity on that ruling.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches next.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, I point out to the Minister that the large majorities he is so proud of were achieved by bundling together Palestine Action with two obvious and very extreme terrorist organisations. In Israel, many citizens are lawfully protesting against the slaughter and starvation of the people of Gaza. By contrast, here, right outside this building, 522 peaceful protesters—also protesting about Gaza—were arrested under terrorism legislation. This spectacular own goal against our right to protest was the entirely predictable consequence of the Government’s proscription of Palestine Action as terrorists. That was enabled by our far too broad definition of terrorism, which includes damage to property that most people do not consider to be terrorism. When will the Government review and correct this overreach in the Terrorism Act 2000?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord will remember that, although the three organisations were put together, Palestine Action has committed three attacks that met the threshold set out in the very Act he mentions: at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, at Instro Precision in Kent and at Elbit Systems in Bristol—not to mention the recent situation at the airbase, on which I cannot go into detail because of ongoing legal proceedings. Palestine Action is encouraging terrorist action and working online to do so. There is a definitive difference in supporting a Palestinian state, which I happen to do, issues around the situation in Gaza, which raise real concerns for the Government and beyond, and criticism of Israel, which many Members of this House have made. These are all reasonable. What is not reasonable, under the orders of this Act, is to support the measures that Palestine Action has taken and is taking.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, if it was illegal noisily to call Israel’s actions a genocide then I suggest that many Members of this House and the other place would currently be serving time. It is not, as the Minister has said. He knows that I have supported the proscription of Palestine Action, but will he meet me to discuss my recommendation in the recent review that he is considering that much of this controversy could have been lessened if the Government and the police had had a mechanism to restrict the activities of this organisation, which was wilfully breaking the law and boasting about doing so, before it reached the terrorism threshold?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will happily meet the noble Lord to discuss his report and recommendations. What Palestine Action is doing now has reached a threshold. Its actions before were criminal; they could have resulted in, and are resulting in, prosecutions, which may or may not result in convictions downstream. The assessment that we have had to make, based on evidence that we have been given, is that Palestine Action has crossed that threshold. He makes a valuable point about how we examine the development of organisations, but the key issue for this House is that there is a threshold in the 2000 Act, which he mentioned, and the neutral assessment is that Palestine Action has crossed it. Therefore, as a Government, we have to take cognisance of that. If we did not and it took actions that caused significant damage or harm to individuals and/or property, which is very possible, we would be culpable for allowing that to happen. I will certainly meet the noble Lord and reflect on his points in due course.
Gilt Yields
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent rise in gilt yields, and what contingency plans they have in place to manage any further rise.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, as is long-standing convention, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. Gilt yields are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors. The Government are committed to economic stability and sound public finances. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable and economic growth is our number one priority.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord is generally dismissive of criticism of economic policy, but the bond markets do not lie and their current verdict is crushing, with borrowing rates at a 27-year high. Sterling also slid this morning. Will the Government even now change course, adopt measures that really support growth and drop policies that destroy growth, such as the Employment Rights Bill and the destruction of the North Sea oil and gas industries?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she will know, recent gilt yield movements have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors. The recent gilt market moves have also been orderly. As she knows, our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and we have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. She talks about the position of the UK economy; she knows that this is an uncertain and volatile global economy, but even so the UK remains resilient and is outperforming our peers. The UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year and our commitment to stability is paying off, creating space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times since the election, with business confidence now at its highest level for 12 months.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, the Financial Secretary is right to point out that yields on German bunds have risen almost as much as yields on gilts in the UK over the last month, but does he recognise the importance of ensuring that the UK’s economic policy does not stand out from other medium-sized countries in Europe? To that end, can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to their fiscal rules in particular and to sound money in general?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am happy to reconfirm that; our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable. The Government have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. At the Spring Statement, the OBR forecast that borrowing would fall in every single year of the forecast, from 4.8% of GDP to 2.1% of GDP in 2029-30.
The noble Lord also said it is important that our economic policy does not stand out from our peers. One area in which we did stand out when this Government came to office was in historically low levels of investment in our economy, which constrained growth. We had the lowest levels of investment in the G7, which is something that our fiscal rules seek to rectify.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is a global glut of sovereign debt as Governments across the globe keep borrowing, but among the G7 it is the UK that has had to raise its yields the most. To aggravate our situation, the wind-down of defined benefit pension schemes leaves us dependent on volatile domestic retail and overseas buyers. What is the Government’s immediate strategy to bring down yields and, more fundamentally, build a sustainable gilts market—and would sterling stablecoin contribute to this?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As I have said, recent gilt yields have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors. Recent gilt market moves have been orderly; the gilt market is deep and liquid, with a good track record in responding smoothly to volatility in levels of gilt supply. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a well-diversified investor base. It is most important that I stress that our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and we have put the public finances on a sustainable path.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister remind the House what the bond market thought of the previous Government’s economic policy, especially the Truss element of it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is obviously right to draw attention to the previous Government’s disastrous economic policies. He knows that, as I have said, the Government do not comment on specific financial market moves, but he will also know that current conditions in gilt markets are completely different from those experienced at the time of the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Then, severe volatility in gilt yields caused instability in the pension fund sector and dysfunction in gilt markets. This led the Bank of England to have to intervene on financial stability grounds to restore market functioning. Recently, gilt yields have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors, and these market moves have been orderly.
As my noble friend draws attention to, when Liz Truss crashed the economy, long-dated bonds were most significantly impacted due to market dysfunction caused by unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic spending plans and the undermining of institutions that are crucial to economic stability, namely the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England. This pushed up mortgage costs by £300 a month, for which working people are still paying the price.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, bond markets obviously charge for their lending to certain countries, on the basis of differing judgments on the health of the borrower, on the prospects and on the signs of coherent strategy and direction. Could we interpret the movement of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury over to a new role, senior Minister inside Downing Street under the Prime Minister, as a first step—an attempt—to recreate a coherent strategy, which is so obviously lacking?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I disagree with the noble Lord’s interpretation of this Government’s strategy. We have a very clear strategy to grow the economy and maintain fiscal stability. It is incredibly welcome that my right honourable friend is now working inside No. 10 and will help to drive forward the Government’s agenda.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend respond to the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about North Sea oil and gas? Will he remind her of the CBI report in spring this year, which showed that in the previous year the green economy had grown by nearly 10%, as opposed to the pathetic growth figure that the last Government produced overall?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend says it much better than I can. I agree wholeheartedly with what he says. Of course it is important that we grow the green economy, but we must also make sure that we grow the whole economy as well.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain what the high level of bond yield means for those renewing fixed-rate mortgages, given that those are determined more by bond yields, albeit at the shorter end, than by base rates? At the moment, the disconnect is creeping towards the shorter rates too.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements, but it is very clear that we have created space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times since the election. That will absolutely help those people taking out a mortgage.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, in his reply to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister did not refer to the question of index-linked gilts. Will he confirm to the House that 30% of the gilts outstanding are index linked, and that therefore this country is inevitably now much more vulnerable to swings in interest rates?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I have said before, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the yield rise does not affect the cost of servicing the debt already in place, including £2.71 trillion of debt inherited from the previous Government?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not sure I entirely follow my noble friend’s question. What I will say is that current global market volatility underlines the centrality of our fiscal rules. We have fiscal rules specifically to give markets confidence that we have a clear path to get borrowing down, and there should be no doubt about the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances, which is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, the recent rise in yields on bonds should serve as a warning that this country is much nearer to the risk of a financial crisis than the Government are even remotely acknowledging. It is not impossible to foresee a trip to the IMF eventually unless the Government can get their fiscal policy under control. They now have a very tough and difficult Budget to introduce, in which they will probably have to take some very unpopular decisions in the short term. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will stop floating various ideas to try them out in the newspapers, will look to raise revenue from the principal taxes that are usually used in these circumstances, which they foolishly ruled out as part of their election manifesto, and will curb and if possible reduce the level of borrowing they are making, and not simply define all borrowing as “investment” to say that it does not damage their fiscal policy? Only that kind of responsible action in the genuine medium and long-term national interest will stop the markets being as nervous as they have been.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. There was a lot there; let me see if I can cover some of that. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that, as the previous Government found, credibility is hard won but easily lost. That is why ongoing market volatility further underlines the importance of a robust fiscal framework and non-negotiable fiscal rules. I assure him that we will continue to meet our fiscal rules. He talks about reducing borrowing, and we have set out a very clear path to reduce borrowing across this Parliament.
The noble Lord has told me many times that we should raise taxes on working people. We have clearly said that that is not our intention, and we have a manifesto commitment to that effect. I will not give a running commentary now on the fiscal forecast or speculate on the next Budget. As he draws attention to, there has been much speculation in the newspapers, as is usual ahead of a Budget. A lot of that speculation is irresponsible, but I will not comment on individual tax measures now. We will do things in the usual way: the Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn, she will take decisions based on that forecast and we will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget in the usual way. The Chancellor will do so mindful of the importance of growth and investment to businesses and the economy.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe whether the wording of this paragraph is compatible with ECHR rulings regarding requirements to disclose religion.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is my intention not to speak to the amendments in this group but to await what the Minister will say about them in order to shorten the debate.
In view of the conversation before we had Questions, I want to reconfirm to noble Lords that, according to paragraph 4.31 of the Companion:
“When the House is in committee there is no restriction on the number of times a member may speak”.
Therefore, a Member may speak after the Minister, and the Minister may speak during the mover of the group’s response to the Minister. The back and forwards may involve as many sessions of conversation and ministerial intervention as possible; it is completely unnecessary to use the phrase “before the Minister sits down” in Committee. Committee is a free-for-all and a conversation. It is an opportunity to focus on the real issues of the group and to have the time to talk them out and get to the nub of them, even if that takes a certain amount of backwards and forwards.
The great advantage of this is that noble Lords do not need to speak until they are sure that the point they want to talk about has not been covered already by other people and satisfactorily answered by the Minister. They can wait to see who speaks and what the Minister says, and only then, if they feel that what they wanted to say has not been said, need they say anything. It is a great technique for focusing debate and shortening groups, which is something which I hope the Government will find helpful. On this group, I beg to move Amendment 255 and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments on the children not in school register, which seek to probe issues surrounding privacy. The children not in school consultation aimed to collate thoughts and views around local authority registers of children not attending school to ensure that all children receive a positive and beneficial education regardless of where that education might be taking place. There were close to 5,000 responses, predominantly from parents, but also from both local authorities and charities, and the findings will help to weave a gold standard of policy and guidance, which I am sure all noble Lords wish to be entirely fit for purpose.
On these specific amendments, it is of course acknowledged that the priority should be to find the right balance between privacy on the one hand and the safety of children who are not well looked after on the other. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran, who has already set out so well His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s view on these issues in the previous groups, so I will not detain your Lordships’ House by repeating those same arguments.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
Amendments in group 4, which we have now got to, concern the inclusion of certain information in the registers and the delegated power for changes to be made to the operation of the registers. I turn to speak to Amendments 255, 256, 257, 258 and 259, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Each amendment addresses an element of the information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers.
Just to reiterate, as I did on the last group, parents need to provide only certain limited information about their child: their name, date of birth, address and how they are educated. All further information which the Secretary of State may prescribe for inclusion in the registers is voluntary for parents to provide. This includes information on the child’s protected characteristics, which Amendment 255 would remove, current and historic child protection inquiries, which Amendment 256 would remove, current or previous child-in-need status, which Amendment 257 would remove, the reasons for the child having looked-after status on the registers, which Amendment 258 would remove, and reasons why the child is eligible for inclusion in the register, which Amendment 259 would delete.
As mentioned in the previous group, the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulations the information which the local authority shall be required to include in the “children not in school” registers, if they hold it or can reasonably obtain it. The intention is for this additional information to help local authorities better understand and support children who are not in school. My department will consult on the content of regulations following Royal Assent. I suggest to the noble Lord that the consultation process is the right approach to determine whether there is a case for omitting certain information or including details such as the reasons for a child’s looked-after status in the registers. On Amendment 255, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that the relevant provision is indeed compatible with European Court of Human Rights rulings. The ECHR memorandum makes this clear.
Amendment 262, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, removes the delegated power for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe how registers must be maintained. This power is intended to enable the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to provide for consistency among local authorities as to how their registers are maintained. This could include factors such as how and how often registers are checked for accuracy, how amendments are to be made, their format, and whether and how registers should be published. Most local authorities already voluntarily maintain a register of children not in school, developed based on their local needs. However, to ensure the accuracy of data and encourage consistency of practices across all areas, the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must be able to prescribe processes relating to maintenance and upkeep in the future.
As mentioned, we will consult on all regulations used to implement the “children not in school” measures, all but one of which will then be laid via the affirmative procedure. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I thank the Minister for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(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.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Wei, I will move Amendment 270 and address other amendments in this group.
Amendment 270 would require a local authority to establish a parental advisory board. This is a useful structure for ensuring that parents and local authorities work together. Amendment 278 would allow parents to provide information in their own words. That may seem a small detail, but it is fundamental. The High Court in Goodred v Portsmouth City Council affirmed that the parents’ own statement is valid evidence of provision, but many councils insist on rigid forms that erase the richness of home education. When looking at the variety of home education, it is important that it can be expressed as it is and is not squashed into a mode of expression it is not suited to.
Amendment 280 would require that the information request be proportionate and relevant to education. Some councils issue broad, ill-defined demands, daily lesson plans and samples of child-generated independent work. Part of this is being able to demonstrate to local authorities what good practice is. As we will discuss in later groups, we need to work towards that.
Amendment 281 would introduce the word “substantial” to describe the information parents must provide. Without it, councils may request irrelevant minutiae under the guise of safeguarding; we all know which council I would use to illustrate that.
Amendment 282 would ensure that families are not bombarded with repeat demands. It is important that we look at the burden of the information provision on parents and indeed on local authorities. My understanding is that this will be addressed in the guidance, and I look forward to that confirmation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am very sorry I was not here earlier today when Clause 33 was debated. The Green Party has had a very exciting morning electing a new leader, and that is where I was. I very much hope I am not going to make a Second Reading speech, but with so many amendments in the Bill, it is at times hard to see the way forward and to follow through a clear line. So I am going to make a speech, and I hope not to make too many more during the course of the Bill, however many amendments I have tabled.
I declare an interest as a grandmother of three home-educated children, all with special educational needs; two are now studying at colleges in Cambridge and the other is making short films about autism. So my experience tells me that school is not suitable for all children. Not all children can find a suitable school and you do not need to be wealthy to create a very rich educational learning environment out of school.
I, like many noble Lords, have had quite a lot of emails on this topic and I sympathise strongly with parents and grandparents of children with neurodiversities. Home education can take on myriad forms that are far removed from the classroom but are, none the less, educational, informative and far better suited to neurodiverse minds. Neurodivergent children are often repeatedly failed by the state school system, but the truth is that every child deserves a tailored education. Parents with the time and inclination to provide their children’s education know that no teacher can possibly have their child’s interest as much at heart as they do.
The Bill reads as if school is the safest, best place for all children to be. For many, that is simply not true. In fact, for many children school is a hostile environment. By making home education harder for parents, we are discouraging them from doing what is best for their child and for many others. Home educators give up their working lives to improve the lives of their children; to ask them now to continuously justify that choice and to make it even harder by adding bureaucratic hoops and hurdles is not in the best interests of all these children. You do not have to specifically disallow home education to make it unworkable, and home educators believe that this register will place an unworkable administrative burden on families.
I also believe that there is an inaccurate conflation of home education with a safeguarding risk. Evidence shows that children at risk are usually already known to social services, so home education is not the source of that risk. Subjecting home educators to intrusive monitoring is neither justifiable nor helpful. We need to improve children’s social care and to support action, not just documentation, for those children who are at risk, but we do not need another diversion targeting huge swathes of decent people and ignoring those in real need.
Setting up a register for children whose parents are not doing anything illegal or dangerous, requiring the collection of a significant volume of personal, sensitive and often impractical information from home-education families, is discriminatory. We should be supporting people to home-educate their children, not criminalising them.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on a few of the amendments. First, Amendment 270 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, should be considered. It actually happens with one local authority, which gets together home educators to share good practice and their experiences, but it should not be statutory, because it requires a considerable amount of organisation in terms of local authorities. However, if home educators in a particular area are working with a local authority that wants to do this, I would not be opposed to that. It might happen formally or informally, but it certainly should not be statutory.
I also think that the voice of the student is important. One of the concerns that I have always had with home education is that it is not just about education, it is about socialising. You have to work very hard to ensure that children and young people who are home educated have the important socialising that they need, but, again, this could happen organically or informally. It is not something that we should just ignore, but it cannot be a statutory provision.
Again, on Amendment 280, I think most local authorities would want to have the information from parents just once a year. I do not see a situation where they would not want that, unless there was “cause”, as the amendment states. Local authorities would want very much to get that information on one particular occasion and that is it, done and dusted, for that period of time.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised concerns about parental and child involvement at both a national and local level. It is of course important that local authorities consult with home-educating parents. But His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition are of the view that the establishment of a “parental advisory board”, as suggested in Amendment 270, or a “children’s advisory board”, as suggested in Amendment 388, is potentially unnecessary in the Bill.
On Amendment 380, we want local authorities to be targeted in their investigations and to focus on those children who are not receiving an appropriate best-in-class education. They may be at risk, and we therefore find it challenging to support this amendment. On the other hand, an appeals process, as suggested in Amendment 382, might work well. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that amendment.
It is frequently said that constructive challenge and laser-focused scrutiny are the hallmarks of your Lordships’ House. But, when presented with eminently sensible amendments whose benefits have already been so eloquently put by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, there is no requirement to go over them again.
The other amendments in this group, which seek clarity on the frequency of responding to local authority requests for information, are understandable. Home-educating parents may have concerns on this and are also likely to be spinning many plates already. The amendments are self-explanatory and we look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed that there has not been support so far for the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which I co-signed. This is a very important amendment and I will explain why.
The amendment is basically to remove from the Bill the provisions in proposed new Section 436D. The purpose therefore is to ask the Government and my noble friend the Minister to think again about it. The provisions place a requirement to provide information within 15 days on all parents, who must provide initial basic information under proposed new Section 436C, such as the name and home address of each parent and, under paragraph (e), a lot of very detailed information about the home educators who will be educating their children.
If a parent is in breach of providing either the initial information or any changes to it, they are then guilty of breaching proposed new Section 436D. The further consequence, if they are in breach, is that they will suffer monetary penalty. This is unfair and far too harsh on ordinary parents who are trying to do an ordinary job of home schooling, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to think again about those provisions. They put the home-schooling parent into an almost criminal capacity, and that is just wrong. So I would be very grateful if my noble friend would think again about all those penalties.
Let us remember that under new Section 436C(1)(e) there is a lot of detailed information provided, for Sunday schools that a child may be going to or evening classes for physical exercise, and so forth. Things can easily change: perhaps there is a new gym mistress for the evening physical education class, or there are new preachers at the Sunday school. These are very detailed matters, but it does not matter about the detail. The obligation is for the parent to provide the details of the change and provide that detail of change within 15 days. This is far too onerous.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken much at this stage of the Bill but, having heard the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I have to say very respectfully that I am concerned.
It seems to me enormously important that the local authority has the opportunity to understand what is happening with children who are home-schooled, and it has the responsibility to check. I have no doubt at all that the family of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, teach their children extremely well at home but my understanding from what I have been told is that this is not true in every family. I think the Government are entirely right to be taking the steps that they are taking, just to check that our children who are not at school are properly cared for.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as I have said previously, the duty on parents to give information for children not in school registers is key to their operation. Information on where the child is being educated, and by whom, is vital in enabling local authorities to identify cases of potentially unsuitable or unsafe education.
The amendments in this group concern this requirement for parents to give information, and how local authorities must act in a transparent and accountable manner towards the home-educating families in their area. Amendment 277, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks, in effect, to remove the requirement.
I want to respond to the broader points that the noble Baroness made about home-schooling. I completely understand—actually, I am not sure that I do understand—why she might have wanted to celebrate the election of her new leader. In any event, I recognise that she has a new leader, which was decided this morning. Had she been here this morning, she would have heard what were, I hope, important comments from me and others on the support that exists within the English and Welsh education system, precisely for parents to home-educate, and the reiteration by this Government that there is no intention in this legislation to remove that right. In fact, there is an intention to provide additional recognition and support while also ensuring that local authorities are able to carry out their functions, by knowing where children are being educated otherwise than in school. I hope that the noble Baroness will read the comments that I made this morning about that.
Without a requirement on home-educating parents to register with their local authority, authorities cannot be assured that they have fulfilled their education duties towards children not in school living in their areas. Parents having to provide required information is an absolutely crucial component for the success of the registers.
I bring my noble friend Lord Hacking back to the point that I made this morning. I was completely clear that it is not the case that failing to provide information to the register would lead directly to parents having to face fines and penalties. I hope that my noble friend will reread that contribution and find that it provides some assurance around the point that he made.
I recognise that there are home educators who are already known to local authorities and are captured on voluntary registers. However, that is not the case for all because there is currently no legal requirement for parents to tell local authorities that they are home-educating. Without placing this proactive duty on parents, local authorities will have no assurance that they have identified all children not in school in their areas. As I have mentioned previously, the duty on parents to give information for registers is separate from but complementary to the annual reports that some parents submit to local authorities for the purposes of providing in-depth information about their child’s education.
In terms of parents giving detailed information on the child’s learning objectives and progress towards them, we want parents to continue to have flexibility to submit information in a way that works best both for them and for the elective home education officer. However, for the basic information, such as where the child is being educated and by whom, it is essential that there is a level of consistency in how this is submitted, collected and maintained. Parents of home-educated children in almost all other western countries must, as a minimum, provide details for a register. Children in England and Wales deserve the same level of assurance.
Amendment 278, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to allow parents to provide the required information in their own words. I appreciate how that approach would afford some flexibility to parents, but there needs to be consistency. That is why we are seeking a delegated power for the Secretary of State to prescribe how local authorities maintain and keep their registers, including the use of a prescribed registration form. We will ensure that the form is accessible and simple for families to use.
Amendments 280, 282 and 285, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to restrict the duty on parents to provide information for registers, and the ability of local authorities to request information, by imposing time limits. Amendment 280 would restrict local authorities from requesting required information to once a year and impose a “reasonable cause to suspect harm” threshold for further engagement. Amendment 282 would provide a similar threshold so that parents did not have to provide information more than once every 12 months, and Amendment 285 would go further by introducing a civil penalty of up to £5,000 for local authorities for asking for information too frequently.
Twelve months would be too long a period for a local authority to be unaware of a change to a registered child’s education provision or personal circumstances. Education concerns can arise at any time, and local authorities must retain the ability to act proportionately without needing to meet a safeguarding threshold. The threshold risks conflating safeguarding with the separate duty to ensure that a child is receiving a suitable education.
Amendments 283 and 284, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to extend parental response times from 15 to 30 days, as well as alternative deadlines that would potentially extend the timeframe to 12 months. We are keen that the length of time to respond to a request is proportionate and balances the needs of the family with the risk of a child being out of education for too long. That is why the Bill already allows a local authority the discretion to extend the timeframe for response to requests for information. That discretion could be used by local authorities if they make the request at a time when, for example, it is likely that a family may be on holiday.
Amendment 281, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to require parents of registered children to provide updates to their local authority only when there has been a substantial change to their information in the register. We share the noble Lord’s ambition that the burden on parents to provide information is kept to a minimum, but we have to ask: what would count as a substantial change? For example, a child attending a setting for an extra half an hour a week could mean that the child was then attending that setting for 18 hours or more, potentially indicating that the setting was operating illegally. Even though it was just 30 minutes more, it would be right that the local authority knew about it as the child might be attending an illegal school.
I know that the noble Lord is also concerned that families may overcomply with their duty to update information. I thank him and other noble Lords for detailing these concerns to my officials in the July meeting. We are committed to ensuring that the registers work for everyone and will continue to take into consideration the feedback that we have heard from your Lordships, home educators and local authorities.
I turn to Amendment 287, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. In a situation where parents have not fulfilled their duty to give information for registers, the amendment would require a local authority to seek approval from a magistrate or independent tribunal before taking further steps to gather the required information. Requiring local authorities to seek approval from magistrates or a tribunal before making reasonable inquiries about a child’s education is disproportionate at best. At worst, it risks children being in unsuitable education for long periods.
If a parent of an eligible child does not provide required information for a register, local authorities may continue informal inquiries. They also have the discretion to issue a preliminary notice for a school attendance order. This notice would require the parent to provide information on the suitability of the child’s education. These are proportionate responses to ensure a child is in receipt of suitable education.
Amendments 270, 380 and 382 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to establish new review processes, including in situations where it is believed that a local authority is acting outside guidance or law. Local authorities are required to act in accordance with the law and should follow statutory guidance. If parents feel that a local authority has acted unreasonably or has not followed the law, there are several existing complaints processes in place, such as the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the judicial review process; in some cases the Secretary of State has powers to intervene.
The guidance updated as part of the children not in school measures will build on existing non-statutory guidance to ensure greater consistency around complaint processing. The new statutory guidance will also be consulted on prior to implementation. Data gathered by the department as a result of the children not in school registers will also allow us to draw comparisons between local authorities, identify any outliers and offer further support to these local authorities where appropriate. For these reasons, while we fully support engagement and transparency between local authorities and home-educating families, we do not believe that these amendments are the right way to achieve that aim.
Amendment 388 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to set up an annual review panel made up of home-educated children to advise on legislation impacting home education. The voice of the child is an important consideration when developing and implementing education and safeguarding policies. There have been previous consultations on changes to home education and young people were able to feed in their views, including a call for evidence in 2018, a consultation on the children not in school registers in 2019 and updates to the elective home education guidance in 2023. We would also welcome input from children as part of the future consultation on the children not in school statutory guidance as part of the implementation of the measures in this Bill.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive set of answers, most of which amount to “wait and see”, which I shall be delighted to do. I would be very grateful if she would send me some information on what she thinks the scope of the Local Government Ombudsman is in this area. I had previously thought that they would not have jurisdiction, so I would be very grateful for the Department for Education’s understanding of what sort of questions they will feel able to resolve. Given that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Lucas
“(6) The register of children not in school created under section 436B must be maintained solely by the local authority and must not be compiled into or made accessible through a national database.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prohibits the creation of a centralised national database of home-educated children. It ensures that all data collected under section 436B remains under local control, in line with principles of data minimisation, family privacy, and proportionality.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, on this I think it would be best if I listened to the Minister’s responses. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we are doing things in a slightly unconventional way today, but I agree that it is probably in order. These amendments come down to the use of information. I would hope that education policy follows information and knowledge. I am talking here about the groups of home educators who are doing it not because they like the idea but because they feel they have to because needs are not being met.
Earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, spoke to an amendment specifying that you should find out certain things. Effectively, it is a reaction to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wei. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has tabled rather subtler amendments about the use and storage of information. I hope the Government can give us at least an assurance that they will be collating information to make sure that those who are home-educating because they feel they have no choice have an answer going forward. This will be very important in the Government’s long-awaited—and, I hope, not just aspirational—changes to special educational needs. We are a large group. I would hope that they are collecting this information, making sure they do something positive with it, then telling us how they manage and distribute it afterwards. That is an equally valid point.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, are seeking further clarification on His Majesty’s Government’s intentions about the use of data from the children not in school registers at a national level. These are indeed valid points to probe, although we might suggest caution around creating a transparency register as set out in Amendment 307, with the additional workload burden it may have on currently overstretched resources.
It is worth noting that there is already a register of information processing, often referred to as a record of processing activities: a document that outlines how an organisation handles personal data. It is a key requirement of data protection laws such as GDPR, and serves as an inventory of all processing activities to ensure transparency and accountability within data handling practices.
Amendment 308 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, sets out some of the purposes for which national data should be kept, including monitoring the overall number of children receiving elective home education or children missing education. We will listen with interest to the Government’s feedback on this amendment.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for stepping in and moving the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short but thoughtful debate. I will not take it personally.
Fundamentally, the Government believe that the department’s understanding of children not in school can be improved through the measures in this Bill. Although we currently have collected and published aggregate data on home education and children missing education from local authorities since 2022, our understanding of this cohort of children can be enhanced further through improved quality of data collected by the department. This data will help identify trends among the cohort of children and help determine future policy needs. I assure noble Lords that any data handled by the department will be dealt with in accordance with data protection law and GDPR principles.
I turn to the substance. Amendment 271 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would disallow data held on a local authority register from being stored on or shared with any other database that is held and managed by an organisation such as the Department for Education. We believe there is considerable value in the Secretary of State being able to receive data from local authority registers to improve oversight and understanding of this cohort on national and local levels. It will make it easier to identify when children have fallen through the gaps.
The information collected will be used for straightforward reasons, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Analysis to identify trends to feed into policy development, maintaining the integrity of the register and supporting safeguarding, education and welfare will allow us to identify why some children are moving out of mainstream education. The adoption of this amendment would therefore undermine our efforts, as outlined in the Bill.
Amendment 307 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require certain public bodies that process data to create a transparency register. As we have heard, this would require those bodies to produce and maintain detailed records of all data processing including the form and publication of the record, retention period and disclosure circumstances. Transparency is an important principle, but current statutory accountability mechanisms and audit provisions already provide appropriate oversight. For example, as part of the department’s commitment to transparency, details of all organisations with which we have shared personal data are published quarterly on GOV.UK, alongside a short description of the project, which I hope the noble Lord considers to be an appropriate safeguard.
Amendment 308, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would, as written, make local authorities unable to share individual-level data with the Secretary of State unless it related to making a direction about a school attendance order. Other information concerning home-educated children or children missing education would be shared only at an aggregate level.
The data processed through children not in school registers is envisaged to have wider uses than just determining whether to issue a direction regarding a school attendance order. Allowing the Secretary of State access to individual-level data will provide for more robust data analysis and research and the join-up of functions aimed at promoting a child’s education or safeguarding. For example, the sharing of individual-level data will enable cross-referencing with departmental databases to locate children who have slipped under the radar due to relocation or changing educational provision.
The provision in the Bill for local authorities to share information from registers with Welsh Ministers could be used in a similar way to enable the location of children who have disappeared from registers due to moving from England to Wales or vice versa. This amendment would therefore undermine the purpose of the registration system, limiting the use of the data it could contain to statistics and exceptional cases concerning school attendance orders. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly request that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a full and helpful answer, for which I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas
“(6) The register established under section 436B shall expire two years after its creation unless the Secretary of State publishes evidence that it has demonstrably improved safeguarding outcomes.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a sunset clause to ensure the register remains under review and is retained only if shown to be effective in improving safeguarding outcomes.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this group seeks to ensure that the most intrusive elements of the Bill, particularly the new register of children not in school and associated powers, are subjected to robust rolling checks and ultimately remain only if they demonstrably work. Amendment 274 from my noble friend Lord Wei would introduce a simple safeguard whereby the register will expire two years after its creation. This would make sure that the system does grow beyond its original purpose without a clear review.
The troubled families programme is an example of a programme that was sold as an early intervention, but which had very little effect and continued long after people knew it was not doing anything useful. Similarly, Prevent, introduced as a targeted strategy to counter radicalisation, was quietly broadened over time into schools, nurseries and local authorities. The UN special rapporteur described it as the systematic surveillance of Muslim families and their children under the guise of safeguarding. These systems do tend to drift, so having the ability to curtail the register, or at least a requirement to review it, would seem a sensible safeguard.
Amendment 330 calls for a two-year pilot scheme before the register is rolled out. We know from experience that local authorities are highly variable in their understanding, and we receive reports of wildly inconsistent demands. If we run this as a pilot, we will get a clear understanding of how the system is going to work before we have to try it nationally on a whole series of overstretched local authorities, some of which will be mid-reorganisation and not in a position to take on something new.
Amendment 320 proposes that every two years the Secretary of State must review the operation of Sections 436B to 436G and lay their findings before Parliament. If we are not going to actively renew these, as previously proposed, we should at least be sure that we review them.
Amendment 329 proposes an independent review board made up of home educators and education law experts. One reason why SEND tribunals overturn 95% of local authority decisions is that independent panels exist to scrutinise flawed local reasoning. If we do not have independent review, we will allow this new system, which we all wish to succeed, to decay unnoticed. The volume of complaints we have heard from families who say that their council simply does not understand autonomous learning, or that they keep applying a rigid “home at school” template and deem everything else unsuitable, demands some expert oversight. The document from Bristol shared with the Government would be an example of that. This board would ensure that decisions are not made solely by people who may have little real grasp of the varied pedagogies embraced by the home education community. Amendment 388, in another group, would give home-educated children a direct annual panel to advise the Secretary of State, as we have discussed.
These amendments are also about preserving the proper balance between state oversight and family privacy. We have heard families voice profound fears about how soft safeguarding powers have become heavy handed. In one county, a local authority insisted on seeing the family’s daughter alone to discuss why she was not in school, despite clear evidence of school-related trauma. The family reported that it felt more like an interrogation than support. Another council threated a school attendance order within weeks of deregistration, purely because it had no familiarity with unschooling approaches. My noble friend feels that these proposals would not harm the Bill but would strengthen it. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Rather foolishly in retrospect, I have added my name to several amendments proposed by Front-Bench Members of the parties opposite, and I therefore have to speak first on them, rather than just say that I agree. On this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has proposed a new clause reviewing the impact on home-educators and the reduction of unnecessary reporting after the event. It also includes an assessment of the administrative and reporting requirements placed on local authorities as part of its proposed terms of reference.
Particularly in the light of this morning’s discussions, when we looked a great deal at the impact on home-educators but also on unprepared local authorities, and the expectation that local authorities should up their game considerably as a result of a number of measures in the Bill, it will be even more important to undertake a review such as this. The Minister has suggested that regulation will provide considerable flexibility. Some of us, including me, have been arguing that some of that flexibility needs to be put in the Bill and that there needs to be parameters around it. But even if there is flexibility, it will be interesting to see whether that actually works in practice. I am very much a supporter of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Storey.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
I will make a quick intervention, if I may, just to counter the claim that the troubled families programme achieved nothing. The evidence does not tell us that, so it is important not to allow us to think that.
Lord Nash (Con)
I support the point that has just been made, which is perfectly valid. Some of the elements of the troubled families programme could be used for school home support for children persistently absent from school. I invite the Minister to look at that, because some of the issues with children who are persistently absent are wider family issues. They need a relationship with one partner of government rather than many, which they do not trust. The noble Baroness makes a very good point.
Lord Storey (LD)
I shall speak to my Amendment 331. This is quite simple, really. It is good practice from time to time to review how things have gone so you are able to adjust it slightly, leave it alone or trumpet the fact that it has worked well. Given this is an issue which has caused such a degree of concern among home educators, this is one small way to say that, whatever is finally agreed, we are going to review it in 12 months, two years or whenever. I think that would make them feel a lot more satisfied with the way we have dealt with this Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on that. I think it is an excellent amendment. To have the certainty of that review would be a great comfort. Home education legislation appears so rarely that it might be 10 years before some malfunctioning system was put right. To make it appear after two years would be a great comfort.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendments 274, 276 and 425 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to introduce different iterations of sunset clauses for the use of children not in school registers. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wei, when he reads Hansard, will understand it would be relatively challenging for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to support such an approach, as our long-standing policy has been to introduce these registers.
We do, however, see merit in Amendment 331 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which seeks a review of reporting requirements and the impact on home educators. It is vital that we achieve workable and realistic reporting requirements as this Bill passes through your Lordships’ House in line with Amendment 260 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, debated earlier, which we very much hope will be accepted by His Majesty’s Government and which aims to avoid adding additional information requirements for the children not in school register. We look forward to the feedback from the Minister.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful and considered debate. I thank noble Lords for their participation. Local authorities have existing duties under the Education Act 1996 to identify children in their area who are not registered at school and not receiving a suitable education and to intervene in such cases. The ability of local authorities to fulfil these duties has been undermined by there not being an obligation on parents to inform the local authority that they are home-educating. Statutory children not in school registers, along with duties on parents and out-of-school education providers to provide information, will support local authorities to identify those children not receiving a suitable education and take action to address this.
On Amendments 274, 276 and 320, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish evidence on the impact and operation of children not in school registers within two years of their creation in order for them to remain in place. In relation to Amendment 320, of course we will periodically evaluate the impact of the registers on local authorities and parents, following their implementation, and bring forward any necessary adjustments to your Lordships’ House as appropriate. In response to Amendments 274 and 276, the central objective of the registers is to support local authorities to identify children not in school in their area who are not receiving a suitable education. This is not just a tool for safeguarding. We therefore do not agree with Amendments 274 and 276, which suggest that solely looking at safeguarding outcomes would be an accurate measure of the register’s success.
On Amendment 329, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which would require the Secretary of State to establish a board of home educators and educational experts to evaluate the impact of the registers, this amendment is unnecessary as we already intend to evaluate the impact of the registers. We have established a forum of home educators and other key stakeholders and are engaging with them on the registers. We will continue engagement post-implementation to evaluate the impact of the registers.
Amendment 330, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require that the Secretary of State delay the national implementation of children not in school registers until a two-year pilot scheme has been completed. A pilot scheme before implementation is unnecessary. The Bill already provides for adjustments to be made to the operation of registers where needed, including via regulations.
Amendment 331, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of children not in school registers on parents and local authorities within six months of the Bill becoming law, and report the findings to Parliament. While we agree on the need for regular and transparent monitoring of the registers, six months is too soon to gather meaningful insights. We will begin analysing data from local authorities one year after the registers come into force and engage with parents and out-of-school education providers at appropriate intervals. This monitoring will demonstrate whether adjustments need to be made. Where this is the case, we will bring it to your Lordships’ House in the usual way.
Finally, Amendment 425, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that all laws concerning home education are reviewed and will automatically expire after five years unless reapproved by Parliament following a public consultation. We believe this would not be the most efficient use of parliamentary time and would only create uncertainty. Of course the impact of any legislation should be monitored and reviewed regularly. However, the timelines for evaluation should be tailored for each Act, statutory instrument and part of the Bill.
Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for those responses. I am delighted to hear that the forum of home educators is to continue. Will the Government consider producing an occasional communiqué from that forum? I would not expect complete openness but something so that we can all know what is going on. The noble Baroness said she will start reviewing one year after. That seems a sensible timeline to me, but will she also commit to a baseline so that we know where they have started from and not just where they are in a year’s time? Might she also make a slightly firmer commitment to report to Parliament on how it is going?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am happy to commit to write to the noble Lord and reflect on what he has said.
Lord Lucas
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable discussion about new inserted section 436E.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this is an area where we have had substantial conversations with the Government so, again, I would prefer to start by listening to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 288A is in my name. In a way, it is the counterpart to the amendment we debated this morning under which parents would have to provide information about providers. This is about the information that the providers need to provide. There are two points in it. I have used the same format as the earlier amendment to say
“a person or organisation is providing regular out-of-school education to a child not registered in school, for more than 10 hours in a week”
and used the words
“is not primarily social or recreational”
and
“takes place without any parent of the child being”
there. I will dwell for a moment on those two points: “regular” and “not primarily social or recreational”.
The point about “regular”, as we have touched on but not fully discussed, is that this should not apply to one-off or occasional items, some of which will come up at short notice and cannot therefore be included in the register because the parents did not know about them in time to give notice. It would be extremely useful to have this in the Bill and not just in guidance. As I argued earlier, we need some parameters around what will come out in regulation. The word “regular” is not a particularly difficult one for the Government to include and would clarify that this refers only to people who are providing regular activities—maybe a definition of regular would be needed.
The other point on which I want to dwell a little more is saying that these activities are “not primarily social or recreational”. The Minister will correct me, but I think that at some point she said that it was not expected that activities that are not educational should be included in the register. The trouble is that a lot of activities—such as rugby training or swimming lessons, where they are carried out by a school—are educational, or could be, and, for example, the Girl Guides is an educational charity. It would be easy enough to label these organisations and activities as educational, which is why I am trying to turn it the other way up and say that activities that should not be registered are those which are primarily social or recreational. That is a fairly simple judgment to make and it would allay quite a lot of fears, including, perhaps, the example I used this morning—although it may be regarded as more educational than social and recreational—of the Wildlife Trusts. It has already stood down its activities because of concerns about the data that it will have to provide on all the children that use its services as part of its home education programme, which has been going on for some time.
In looking at this, I ask the Minister to reflect a bit more on those two descriptions: “regular” and “not primarily social or recreational”, as opposed to the “not educational” aspect.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, this is probably not an interest that I have to declare under the rules of the House, but it is relevant. I am a trustee of the Atlas Foundation, which helps a couple of groups to do with rugby, and which regards itself as benefitting children through rugby. Rugby is a nice sport, with lots of structure and authority figures, and such groups reliably reach young people who are in danger of offending and so on. Will these groups be taken down by this?
This will not be the cuddly end of home education. It will concern people not in school because they do not like school and have rejected it, who might technically be regarded as home-educated. What is their status? Are they affected? Is this going to put an administrative burden on groups which are run by amateurs—by people who do their own tax returns, such as the secretaries of organisations? Will we put this burden on them? A little clarification and common sense might help. If some of your client base comes from this area, what is your status?
Placing another administrative burden on organisations which, if they are run on a charitable basis, do not want to spend their money on admin but rather on the help they provide, might put more pressure on them. I do not think it was the Government’s intention, but making sure this does not catch those organisations is very important.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is a large group of very detailed amendments which seek to clarify the responsibilities that the Bill will place on providers and how they are expected to fulfil those responsibilities in practice.
The amendments, which are mainly in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, highlight the variety that exists in the range of approaches that are used to educate children at home. I know that the Minister’s earlier commitment that officials would work through these points with my noble friends and other noble Lords over the summer was very much appreciated by them, and I hope that any outstanding uncertainty can be clarified when the Minister makes her closing remarks.
Amendments 291 and 293, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are probing amendments and have, at least in part, been addressed by the Minister earlier today. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and I accept her point that the concept of weekends and holidays might not apply to some home-educated children, so I do not think there is any need for the Minister to cover that point again when she responds.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Let me organise my notes—you are keen for things to move quickly and then they move just that bit too quickly.
The importance of out-of-school education providers to home-educating families has been raised several times already. I recognise again the important part these settings play, providing enriching activities and education to a vast array of children. I hope that these providers will recognise that the measures included in the Bill give no reason to cease this valuable work—notwithstanding that I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about the concerns of organisations as we clarify the intentions here. We will continue, therefore, to engage with the sector on the implementation of children not in school registers, so it is confident in what the registers mean for it.
The amendments in this group concern the duty on certain out-of-school education providers to give information for children not in school registers. Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the duty. This is a vital element of the measures that will aid the identification of children who should be on registers but are not. It is essential for enabling local authorities to cross-reference information on their registers to ensure accuracy. We know that many out-of-school education providers share our ambition to secure the best possible outcomes for these children and will gladly support the registers on that basis.
Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the word “structured” from the definition of out-of-school education. Actually, the impact of this amendment would be to potentially bring many more providers into scope of the duty, such as informal or ad hoc educational arrangements. It is important that the duty remains proportionate. I know that proportionality is an ambition shared by many noble Lords in this House and has been an important theme of the debates today.
This is not to say that informal or ad hoc educational arrangements are invalid. We know that some home-educators follow child-led approaches to learning, in which, under the direction of their parent, children learn from a wide range of people they encounter in their daily lives. Parents can record this as time spent in education for the purposes of the registers, but local authorities will not have the power to seek information from those individuals.
It is also important to note that the provider duty applies only where education is provided without any parent of the child being actively involved in their tuition or supervision. This means that groups of home-educating parents who meet up with their children are unlikely to be captured by the duty. The duty also applies only when an individual is providing the education; therefore, creators of platforms for e-learning, for example, would not be required to give information on children who access their websites.
Amendments 288A, 291, 292 and 293, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would limit the Secretary of State’s power to set a threshold at which local-level authorities can request information from out-of-school education providers, or otherwise exempt providers from the duty to give information; for example, by removing the requirement in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-educated children—I will not return to that again; I have taken out the relevant paragraph.
I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. The Bill allows for regulations to set a threshold, and we are committed to setting it at a suitable level. I recognise the probing element of the amendments in this case; however, noble Lords’ varying suggestions on where the threshold should be set—for example, at six or 10 hours—exemplify why it should not be set in primary legislation. We will consult further to ensure the threshold balances the need for local authorities to collect necessary information without placing unreasonable burdens on providers. Noble Lords will also have the opportunity to debate the threshold when it is set in regulations through the affirmative procedure.
To reiterate, the intention behind the provider duty is to capture the providers involved in providing a home-educated child’s education, rather than organised activities that the child may be involved in for primarily recreational or social reasons—even if they are important for their development, such as the example of rugby raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
As I previously highlighted, the ability to prescribe a threshold, as well as the ability to make regulations to exempt types of providers from the duty, will help ensure that only those that are relevant are captured. It is our intention to exempt those organisations that have a drop-in, drop-out nature or happen irregularly. Examples of that include museums that offer workshops for children, as my noble friend Lady Morris stated this morning; public lectures that are open to any family or individual to book; and periods of work experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp has suggested. It is our intention to exempt those organisations and types of activities.
I know that some noble Lords are concerned that the provider duty introduces a disparity between school children and home-educated children, but we must remember that there is a huge level of oversight for where and what children are learning at school, which is bolstered by inspection frameworks, curriculum requirements and attendance data. What we are asking of out-of-school education providers in comparison is minimal. As part of the implementation, we will keep engaging with the sector to ensure continuity of provision for home-educated children; I recognise how important that is.
Amendments 294 and 299, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for providers to confirm to local authorities whether they are providing out-of-school education to a child for more than the prescribed amount of time, and to remove the requirement to provide information on the amount of time they are doing so. Amendment 294 would require providers to give information on any child. This would not be proportionate. The legislation limits this to children to whom they are providing education above a prescribed threshold without their parents’ involvement.
In reference to Amendment 299, on understanding the number of hours children are attending such provision without their parents, we will support local authorities to identify children who are attending unregistered independent schools. Some children not in school are attending those illegal settings for long hours and are not receiving a safe or suitable education. It is crucial that the local authority has the information required to intervene in those circumstances.
Turning to Amendment 298, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to further clarify the information that providers are required to give local authorities on the total amount of time for which they provide education to children, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The drafting is already clear that the total amount of time that the provider provides education to the child refers to the time when the child is receiving education from the provider. However, statutory guidance can be used to give further detail if necessary.
On Amendment 296, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would require providers in scope of the duty to provide only information that they already know to local authorities, providers should already hold the required information for health and safety and safeguarding purposes, and they will have to provide it only on request. Enabling providers to provide only the information that they know makes it too easy for unsuitable settings to just say “I don’t know” and to keep children hidden away from the services that are there to support them.
On Amendment 300, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the provision in new Section 436E that the local authority must request information from a provider by sending or leaving a notice at the place where the education is provided, providers in scope of the duty need clarity on how information will be requested. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment due to his concerns as to how the provision will work for virtual providers. The legislation already provides for a notice to be served electronically, and we can make this clear in statutory guidance.
On Amendments 301 and 302, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seek to extend the period by when a provider must respond to a local authority’s request for information, it is essential that local authorities have the requested information as soon as possible so that they can ensure that their registers are accurate and identify children who should be registered but are not. The timeframe for providers to give the required information is at least 15 days, and a local authority has discretion to extend that—for example, to account for closures over holiday periods.
Amendments 303 and 304, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out reasons to exempt some out-of-school education providers from monetary penalties should they not provide requested information for a local authority’s register. A local authority does not have to impose a monetary penalty on providers should they fail to provide information or provide incorrect information. It would be unlikely that a local authority would issue a monetary penalty if a provider had made a minor mistake for the first time, for instance. We will look to make it clear in the statutory guidance that authorities can engage with providers to correct minor mistakes without having to resort to penalty notices. The process for providers to make representations against and appeal a monetary penalty is set out in the Bill. I think this is sufficient recourse for providers who disagree with their monetary penalty.
I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined and because of the explanations I have provided, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, the Minister made some excellent and very clear statements in response to my amendment, which are extremely useful. Will she consider putting any part of that in the Bill? It seemed to me that she was very clear and definitive, and that it was not beyond the wit of the department to come up with some clever form of words that would indicate what she stated without making it very difficult to introduce regulations later. Perhaps that is something the Minister would consider.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have stated it on the record here. I have also identified one of the problems with putting it in the Bill—I used the example of time limits, where, so far, we have had two different suggestions as to whether that should be six hours or 10 hours. The noble Lord knows this, but there are real difficulties and inflexibilities in placing that sort of detail in legislation. I would be more than happy to write to noble Lords, going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. I think I am right in saying that the regulations will also be subject to consideration by this House. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. As much as I know that people love things to be in Bills, in this case I genuinely think that we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something in the Bill would do.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
If my noble friend could imagine that she has not sat down, I would like to ask one question. Maybe I have missed it out, but the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, tabled Amendment 295 but did not speak to it in the debate, and I am not sure that I heard any reply to it from my noble friend. This amendment is important because, once again, detailed information is being sought from parents and, if they are in breach of providing that information, it is stipulated 15 times that they are exposed to monetary penalty. Has my noble friend dealt with this? Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, can help here.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Well, I can reassure my noble friend that I did cover Amendment 295 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. What we are talking about in these provisions relates to penalties on providers. We have moved on from the discussions that we were having about the requirements for parents to provide information. I hope that my noble friend will look back on what I said. I did provide quite considerable reassurance about both the process and the range of circumstances in which monetary penalties would most certainly not be the first thing that would be looked to in relation to a failure by providers to provide information.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her tolerance and undertake to properly read the Hansard of today’s debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
May I say something? I was late to the debate, so I have no right to speak.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Government say no. I just wanted to apologise.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was listening. I would just like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for speaking on my behalf so eloquently. I hope that he supports the rest of my amendments as well.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(9) The Secretary of State must publish annually the GCSE results of children listed on the register.(10) The Secretary of State must ensure that the GCSE results of children on the register are included for each set of outcome data published by the Government.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to record outcome data for children on the register as a subsection of each set of performance data published by the Department for Education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 306 in my name, which would require the Department for Education to publish the aggregate GCSE results of those children registered as being educated at home. I stress “aggregate”, because I think there was some confusion when this amendment was debated in the other place as to whether we were seeking to publish the individual GCSE results of individual children, which is not the aim of this amendment.
The aim is to give some relevant insight from this data, including what percentage of children who are electively home-educated end up sitting public exams, what those results are and what percentage are not sitting public exams. Our amendment would see these results being published separately from those relating to schools, so that the data would not be confused. I suppose I am puzzled as to why the Government would not want to publish this information.
I will touch briefly on the other amendments in this group. Amendment 317 is very much in the same spirit as my Amendment 306, in the names of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei. It seeks similar data, in relation not just to electively home-educated children but to those looked after by the local authority, those in a PRU or in special education otherwise than at school. I wonder whether the Minister thinks this would be useful or whether some of the numbers involved would be so small as perhaps to be potentially misleading.
Amendment 316, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Storey, probes the provision of financial support for electively home-educated children sitting public exams, and the Minister will know that there are real issues in practice about these children being able to sit public exams, and finance is one part of that. I appreciate the pressure on local authority budgets, but of course these are, effectively, children who have saved the state money, and I for one would be keen to see as many as possible sit public exams. I beg to move.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 306 in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran. Given that this country has the joint lightest-touch approach in Europe in relation to the oversight of home education, I would have thought this is a no-brainer to enable us to understand more about the performance of these children. I also hope that those in the home education lobby will welcome and support the amendment, as it would give them the opportunity to show their paces.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 317 in this group, which would rather expand the range of reporting to other groups of children who are under the care of the state and not in a specific school. It is really important for the governance of education in this country that we understand how all our children are performing. I would expect a local authority to take an interest in the examinations of home-educated children and these other groups of children in Amendment 317 in their local area. I would expect the Department for Education also to be interested, not for year-to-year panicking but in a determination to understand what the difficulties and differences are and how, over time, to drive the results up. The basic starting point of that is to get the data out.
Particularly if you are reporting at a national level, you are not reporting anything that has any element of personal or identifiable data to it, but you are putting a bit of data down on the table to draw people’s attention to what the state of affairs is. That is a very important part of the way in which the state should have responsibility for what it is providing to our children.
Equally, I agree with those who are saying, particularly as we are bringing home education within the scope of the state so much more, that we should take responsibility for making sure that home-educated children find it easy to take crucial examinations. At the moment, it is extraordinarily difficult. They may have to travel hundreds of miles to find an examination centre and pay thousands of pounds to have access to an exam. The Prime Minister is borrowing a flat so that his child may have a quiet environment in which to study for his examinations, so one would hope that the Government realise that making it easy to take exams within a reasonable distance from home and without undue stress on the family’s finances is an objective we should have—particularly when, as my noble friend says, home-educated children are saving us so much money.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I support the proposal on GCSE results from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. It is very important, for the reasons she suggests. I have seen some interesting results from home-educated children, which show them performing well in these areas. The results would be interesting to see and may improve the score, as it were, for the country as a whole.
Secondly, I entirely support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I will say nothing more except that this is perhaps the biggest single practical obstacle in the current regime that home-educating parents have reported to me. I will leave it to the noble Lord to press that case.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will deal first with Amendment 306 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which we also support. I am interested in hearing from the Minister about why we would not want to do this.
On Amendment 316, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, it is easy to say, “You chose to let your children not be part of the school system, so you can just get on with it. You chose to home-educate them, so we are not going to pay for exams or whatever”. That would be the wrong way to approach this. If we really want to make home education closer to local authorities, so that they support each other, there are a number of supportive things we can do.
Not every home educator has the financial resources to pay for examinations. We saw a huge rise in home-educated children during Covid, many of whom come from deprived areas. Families really struggle to find the costs for examinations, so supporting this amendment would be a hand of educational friendship. We know that home educators take huge pressure off the education budget as a whole and off school rolls, so I just think it is the right thing to do.
I am quite fascinated by Amendment 478 and looking forward to hearing the Minister’s reply. I thought that all high achievers—super-high achievers, if you like—whether they are educated at home or at a maintained school, academy or free school, would get that recognition. I do not quite understand this amendment, so perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised this issue at Second Reading. I supported him then and I support him again now. It is quite unfair that a child who has been educated privately at home should be placed in a different position from state-educated children. All children who have been home educated should be encouraged to go through these exams and not face a financial penalty. This is a very simple measure, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to give it favourable consideration. It is a much fairer system and it encourages all home-educating parents to put their children through examination, so that the quality of their teaching can be tested.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Supporting children to achieve and thrive requires parents, authorities and education providers to work together. That is what much of our debate today has been about and speaks to the amendments in this group that concern the facilitation of examinations and the publication of exam results for home-educated children.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response to Amendment 317. I understand her reluctance to publish information as if home educators were a school, but I urge her to think how useful it would be to have that information for understanding what is happening in home education.
It is one of the long-running criticisms of home education that there is no information as to how these children are doing—you say they are doing well, but you cannot show me any information as to that. It would be really useful in understanding, as the noble Baroness has said, whether an internationally liberal approach to home education is justified. Even if it is only for the Government’s own policy formation, I very much hope they will make sure that they can put together the sort of information I have detailed in this amendment, so that they can understand the effects of policies as they are at the moment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, I thank the Minister for her response. I absolutely support the sentiment just expressed by my noble friend Lord Lucas about the importance of understanding the outcomes for children who are home-educated.
In relation to my Amendment 306, the reasons that the Minister gave for not aggregating and publishing, or even aggregating and not publishing, their GCSE results was—as I wrote down—that, first, it was hard to do and, secondly, it would not produce the results that we expect. It feels curious to me that someone could not put a box on the form—that a child could tick, to say that they were home-educated—that could be aggregated.
On the expected results, the whole point, or part of the point, was to understand how many home-educated children were taking public exams and how many were not. I think that would be a useful bit of information. So I do not accept the argument that it would not produce the results that we expect; we do not have an expectation because we do not know what they are. More widely, when there were very small numbers of children who were home-educated, it was perhaps—
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Just to be clear, I do not know whether I said that they would not produce the results that we expect. If I did, that was not what I meant to say. What I meant to say was that in terms of the ability to have a statistical analysis of the quality of home education, the different nature of home education and the range, quite rightly, of decisions made by parents—many of whom might decide that exams are not the appropriate route for their children—would mean that we would not be able to formulate from that data the common view of performance that the noble Baroness is suggesting would be the objective.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for that clarification. What I wrote down is “not producing the results we expect”. We can check in Hansard whether that is what she actually said. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that this is a kind of entry point question. It is not going to give us a sophisticated analysis but it gives us some perspective. If we tried to estimate by taking a straw poll of Members of the House what percentage of home-educated children do GCSEs, we might get very varying results, so even just knowing that might be valuable.
On the other amendments in this group, the Minister was clear that parents are fully responsible, including on the financial implications of home education, but it was good to hear her reiterate the support duty, including on access to previous exam papers. How that support duty is communicated to parents will obviously be of great importance. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require local authorities to offer appropriate support to the parent of a child on the register.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 309 and 310 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for whose support I am grateful. I also support Amendment 309A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, on language accessibility, and Amendment 426C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on access to sport and recreation. I can see that the practical implications of that are a little complicated, but it would be really important for home-educated children to have the same encouragement for physical activity.
My amendments would alter the behaviour of the registering authority in that it would have to offer, not wait for the home education parent to request, support. This is, first, because parents in marginalised communities, remote from the digitalised world and in some cases low in literacy, may not know that support is available, and, secondly, because, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma parents may have learned to distrust public authorities because of the widely attested discrimination and prejudice they will have experienced.
Requiring local authorities to make the first move would enable the authority to identify more clearly what kind of support is needed and, further, find out what problems the child experienced in school so that these can be addressed. I hope my noble friend will accept these amendments.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 313 and 314 in my name. I originally thought I was going to speak for rather longer on this, but so much has already been covered, including the fact that I was looking here for some very positive statements from the Minister about home education generally. Such statements have been coming throughout this debate, which is extremely good.
I am also totally supportive of the fact that the Minister needs to send out some very firm messages about the people missing school. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, there are more than 100,000 home-educated children but also a missing 100,000 and we do not know where they are, so there is a balance to be drawn between both of those.
My two amendments try to pick up on the point about rebuilding trust in the system among home-education parents, and indeed perhaps among local authorities, which has been quite badly damaged by the original presentation of this Bill. As has been said already today, there is a common endeavour here to secure the education, welfare and future of children and young people, some of whom are among the most vulnerable in the country. Those are the young people we are talking about. Throughout the Bill, we need to get the balance right between safeguarding and necessary bureaucracy, between parental and state responsibility, and between necessary assessment and support. I do not think that is being achieved at the moment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My amendments so far have tried not to put further administrative burdens on families who home-school. It can be vast, complicated and very difficult for them to achieve. However, my Amendment 315 follows on very nicely from the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because, at the moment, there are huge financial pressures on local councils. We know that local authorities are struggling. I am told that the special educational needs and disabilities system is creaking at the seams—some people are using the words “breaking point”. So the premise that local authorities are best placed to judge the needs of any child, especially over and above their own families, is perhaps foolish, because local authorities vary enormously in expertise and understanding of alternative education approaches.
Officers who visit families might be very unfamiliar with the sort of experience they see. They may be unfamiliar with home education and special educational needs, and they may not know much about child development. They might make subjective and perhaps inconsistent judgments about the family they are seeing and might penalise families who are supplying excellent education simply because it does not look like “school”.
It is quite important that we understand that local authorities have to exercise extremely difficult judgment. Putting a further burden on families is really unwise.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. This is really the nub of things—how we can make support work.
I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said. It is absolutely clear that some local authorities take any opportunity to tip home-educating parents into getting their children back into school. We want to be encouraging parents, at all times, to approach local authorities to say that they need some help—that is a perfectly ordinary thing to do. If you as a solicitor are sued by someone else, the first thing you would do is find another solicitor. Even if you are an expert, you go and ask for help. It should be regarded as ordinary. No one should take on something such as home education without looking all the possible sources of advice, because there will always be someone who has insights that go beyond your knowledge. Protecting against the misuse of that approach is important to making sure that we have a strong relationship between local authorities and parents.
My Amendment 311 would require local authorities to explicitly take account of the needs of the child and the educational preference of the parents. That is a very important part of the attitude; the local authority should understand the parents and work with them, not try to impose its own formula.
I will also speak to a number of amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Wei. Amendments 390, 401, 402, 407, 419 and 422 address the financial asymmetry borne by home-educating families. Every child educated at home saves the state around £7,500 a year. However, the entire burden of curriculum costs, exam fees, tutoring and lost parental income falls on the families themselves. Amendment 390 would introduce tax relief for education expenses, while Amendment 401 would grant rebates when families home-educate due to a lack of suitable school places.
Amendment 402 would adjust council tax to reflect that home-educating households are not drawing on local school budgets. Amendments 407 and 419 explore models for direct funding, whether through per-pupil allocations for individual families or co-operatives, which would bring a measure of parity to a system that otherwise risks confining high-quality home education to the affluent.
Amendment 422 recognises another imbalance: where the state compels parents to spend hours compiling reports or attending overnight meetings while simultaneously providing the labour of teaching, they should not do so entirely unpaid. Compensating that time, at least to the level of the minimum wage, is not only fair but respects the immense commitment that parents undertake on society’s behalf.
Amendment 396 presses the Government to fund independent research into home education practice. It is striking how much policy in this area proceeds on assumption and anecdote rather than robust data. What does successful autonomous learning look like across different family contexts? How do educational outcomes compare when we look beyond narrow test metrics to include well-being, creativity and lifelong resilience?
Speaking with my own voice now, that is something that I would very much support. As the Minister said, it is difficult to get a grip on how education is doing just from incomplete exam statistics. Doing some proper research would not only benefit the Government and their policies but enable the home education community to become a self-improving community and to do better by their own children, which is a huge motivation for them.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend Lady Garden was beaten by the rapid progress that has been made by recent standards, so I shall just draw the House’s attention to her amendment, which says that if someone does not have English as a first language, they should receive some help in understanding the requirements, and that that should be appropriate to them when they are dealing with this field. It is not a big thing, but it is important to get it and the Government’s response on the record.
Looking down this very eclectic list of amendments, I come to one from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about sports education, and I wonder if there is some way of linking in there. One of our challenges is how much we should help people with sporting education. Physical fitness is an important part of that; it is a great way of asserting degrees of confidence in certain groups of people, and we could put the arts down here as well. Are the Government looking at ways in which certain aspects that cannot be provided in a small setting might be done by the education establishment? Is any thought going into this? We have sport on the list, and we could easily put something like the performing arts down too.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, three main themes run through this group of amendments. The first relates to the practical support offered to home-educating parents who request it. Amendments 309 and 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, have merit in that they seek clarity about what support can be expected from a local authority, although in practice I imagine that the term “appropriate support” might be hard to guarantee.
As we have just heard, other amendments focus on very specific elements of support, such as Amendment 309A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, which would offer support in a language that parents understand, or Amendment 313 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, regarding the provision of the same support for electively home-educated children as is available to children in schools. It would be very helpful for the Government to set out what the basic support offer from local authorities will look like and how it will be funded. I hope very much that the Minister will cover this when she responds.
The second principle that emerges from this group is about the relationship between electively home-educating families and the local authority, which I know my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei have been particularly concerned about. This is set out most comprehensively in Amendment 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It is helpful to see the spirit of engagement that electively home-educating families would like to have with local authorities. I am not quite sure—perhaps the Minister has an answer—how you legislate for relationships. Having clarity about the Government’s expectations in this area, alongside what the basic support offer will be, could create a degree of transparency, which is a good platform from which to build good relationships.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are introducing the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families. While home-educating parents assume full responsibility for the education of their child, local authorities can and should be a source of information and advice for parents. At the heart of this is the importance of families and local authorities working together to support all children to achieve and thrive. The support duty establishes a baseline level of support across all English and Welsh local authorities. We will say more about the form that that should take in statutory guidance, were this legislation to pass—or when it passes, I should say, optimistically.
I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised in this group on the support duty and access to resources and facilities for home educators. First, I turn to those amendments which focus on the operation of the support duty and relationships between local authorities and home-educating families: Amendments 309, 309A, 310, 311, 313, 313A, 314 and 315. Amendments 309 and 310, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, would require local authorities to provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it. I have sympathy with the points made by my noble friend about some of the very vulnerable children who may receive home education. It is probably more appropriate to think about the other forms of support that those children should receive—or even, given that level of vulnerability, whether or not home education is the appropriate and suitable education for them. The other issue is that this proposal would also remove local authority discretion as to the nature of the support provided. It would mean that many home-educating families who would prefer to have a choice as to whether they wish to access the support offered by local authorities would not have that choice, as the amendment suggests that authorities should provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it.
Amendment 309A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, would require support to be provided in a language that the parent understands. I am happy to advise that local authorities will have to have due regard to each individual request from parents, which would include consideration of accessibility through use of languages other than English where necessary. This aligns with local authorities’ compliance with the public sector equality duty to consider the diverse needs of different individuals within their community.
I turn to Amendments 311 and 313A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 311 would require the local authority to have regard to the needs of the child and educational preference of their parents when considering which forms of support to offer. This amendment is unnecessary. We would already expect local authorities to take these factors into account when offering advice and information as part of the support duty. Amendment 313A appears to seek to introduce a “best interest” consideration in relation to the exemption of certain children from the benefit of the support duty—specifically, those children who would be exempt because they have secured additional learning provision or other provision as set out in the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.
The children exempt from the support duty, as set out in new Section 436G(3) in Clause 31, are exempt in order to avoid the duplication of support from local authorities. For instance, a child in receipt of alternative provision arranged by the local authority would already be in receipt of support from the local authority. Including a “best interests” test in the process specifically related to children subject to Welsh additional learning needs legislation is unnecessary. We are confident that the support duty focuses on the right children, and the existing exemption prevents duplicative support having to be provided by local authorities.
I turn to Amendment 313, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, Amendments 408 and 412, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. These amendments would give a right of access to a range of services, facilities and other advantages to home-educated children. Advantages such as access to a school’s facilities and extra-curricular provision are specific to school attendance. If parents wish to access these, a state-funded school place remains available for the child. When a child has an education, health and care plan, most parents will have the choice to make suitable alternative arrangements to those listed in it. For example, most parents can choose to home-educate rather than take advantage of the special educational provision secured by the local authority. It is right that, when alternative arrangements have been chosen and made, the local authority is released from its duty to secure education provision for the child. Local authorities will still have a duty to check the suitability of home education and review the education, health and care plan at least annually. If, at any point, the local authority considers that home education is no longer suitable, it should intervene to support the child by taking appropriate action.
On requiring access to venues for taking public exams, I acknowledge that this is an issue of concern to noble Lords and to parents, as we have heard. Amendment 312, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendments 383 and 426, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, focus on access to examinations for home-educated children. Amendment 312 would place a duty on local authorities to secure an examination centre within a reasonable distance for children eligible for inclusion on children not in school registers. Amendment 383 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide parity of exam fee support and access to past exam papers for home-educated children, as compared to children attending maintained schools. Amendment 426 would oblige private schools to let home-educated children sit exams on their premises.
Parents who choose to home-educate assume full responsibility for planning where to access examinations. The Joint Council for Qualifications website provides information on the nearest exam centres, and parents can ask centres to accommodate their child. Home-educated students can access past exam papers to support exam preparation. I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns, and I appreciated his willingness to discuss this in more detail during the meeting in July. It is certainly possible to think about how we could support parents in finding access to exam centres, in the way noble Lords have discussed, without placing the type of requirement on local authorities suggested by these amendments.
With regards to Amendment 426, as with state-funded schools, if a private school wishes to support private candidates, that is a choice for the school’s management. It is not for government to micromanage the operations of private enterprises in the way suggested.
Amendment 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would place a duty on local authorities to build and maintain positive relationships with home-educating families, including through events, and to ensure that staff have appropriate training and experience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has already identified, it is quite difficult for government to legislate for good relationships, but I can reassure the noble Lord that an expectation for local authorities to build positive and respectful relationships with home-educating families, underpinned by well-trained and knowledgeable staff, is set out in existing departmental guidance. However, I know that he and others are concerned by reports from some home educators that local authorities are not following this guidance. The department does take seriously any complaints received about the conduct of local authorities, as I suggested earlier today. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority is acting unreasonably, she can intervene using the powers available to her under Section 496 of the Education Act.
Amendment 315, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would prohibit the commencement of proceedings for a school attendance order if a parent has requested support. Although we welcome local authority support, allowing a request for support to halt legal action, even when the education provided is plainly unsuitable, would create a system that is open to abuse, delaying necessary intervention and potentially allowing children to be in unsuitable education for a prolonged period.
Amendments 390, 401, 402, 407, 411, 413, 419 and 422, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to provide financial incentives or reimbursements, for instance in the form of tax breaks for home-educating families. Although I recognise that home education can be a significant undertaking, the Government’s view is clear that parents who choose to educate children at home bear the financial responsibility for doing so, because a state-funded place is available for those children.
Amendment 396, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, aims to require the Government to fund independent academic research into effective home-education practices, with results published every three years. The data collected from children not in school registers will be a good and suitable vehicle for analysis and research into factors concerning home education. This is already occurring through the Department for Education’s existing data collection, which began in autumn 2022. It will be strengthened through improved data quality and by the statutory provisions for sharing data with the Secretary of State when the Bill’s measures come into force. Aggregate data will be published on an annual basis, subject to appropriate data-protection protocols. This will support the carrying out of some of the research that noble Lords have identified into the nature and success of home education.
Finally, Amendment 410, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the Secretary of State to establish a public-broadcast service which provides national curriculum-aligned educational content for home-educating families. As noble Lords are aware, there are already a wide range of educational resources which home-educating families can access, both paid for and free of charge. I am not sure it would be a reasonable or legitimate use of taxpayers’ money to develop a TV station in the way in which the noble Lord has asked for.
I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and further information and that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments, but may I pick up briefly the question of exam centres for home-educated children? The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was kind enough in early 2024 to allow me to start exploring what was required to reverse the trend that we have seen for many years of a reduction in availability of exam centres. This was rudely interrupted in July—sadly, for us—but it was clear to me that there was no lack of good will.
We have a collection of about half a dozen organisations, each of which has sets of individual requirements and ways of looking at things that do not quite mesh and that make it difficult for a school to continue the provision. This includes the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. One of the great difficulties is that, if you allow any outside candidate, you have to admit all outside candidates, and if any of them have special needs and require particular provision in separate rooms and you do not have that, you do not know where to provide it and you do not have the budget for the staffing, you just say, “We cannot do this because we cannot handle the exceptional circumstances”. It is a question of getting people together and saying, “We, the Government, have an objective: we want home-educated children to have reasonable access to exam centres. Please sit down together, sort out your differences and give us the answer”. And they would, because it is perfectly possible; it just requires a series of small compromises.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am not convinced that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the reason why there are difficulties in the way that the noble Lord outlined, but I take his point that we could make progress on this were there to be some brokering of arrangements. I would be willing to give further consideration to information about access to examinations and how to overcome some of the issues.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s sympathetic response. Perhaps I could discuss with her later some aspects of the approach to marginalised parents. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 309.
Lord Hampton
“Review of safeguarding protections in private tuition settings(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of—(a) the adequacy of safeguards in place to protect children who receive private tuition, either online or in-person, (b) the extent to which providers of private tuition carry out background checks on their tutors, and(c) the impact, if any, of the activities defined as “Regulated activity relating to children” in Schedule 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 on safe- guarding in private tuition settings.(2) Within six months of the completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review and any recommendations to improve safeguarding protections in private tuition.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the Government to assess the adequacy of safeguarding protections for children with private tutors, who may not have to undergo an enhanced DBS check under current requirements.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the rather dramatically numbered Amendment 333ZA in my name and belatedly declare an interest as a state secondary school teacher. In the past I also worked as a private cricket coach, which is quite relevant here. I acknowledge the help of Edapt in this amendment and in bringing this issue to my attention.
I was astonished to discover that under current UK legislation, individuals barred from working with children can still legally operate as private tutors if hired directly by a parent. This is due to the private arrangement exemption in Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. As a result, there is no legal requirement for such tutors to undergo an enhanced DBS check, nor a legal mechanism to prevent someone on the barred list offering or delivering tuition to children. This is also true of those who have been struck off by the Teaching Regulation Agency. This loophole presents a significant and increasingly relevant safeguarding risk, especially in the context of rising private tuition, including via online platforms.
The private arrangement exemption applies even where tuition is paid, unsupervised or delivered online. Research published by the Sutton Trust suggested that 30% of 11 to 16 year-olds in the UK had received private tuition at some point. That includes both my children; it never occurred to me to ask for a DBS. The BBC recently reported that 90 private tutors in the UK have been convicted of sexual offences involving children over the past 20 years.
While many tutoring platforms and companies require DBS checks, the current legal framework leaves a large part of the educational landscape unregulated, particularly for self-employed tutors working independently. This is not commonly known. Speaking in September last year, Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza said:
“Anybody who is working one-on-one with a child as a tutor, should have a DBS criminal record check. It’s an absolute basic minimum”.
Her predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, who sadly is not in her place, said in 2021:
“The Government should look at this loophole and see how it can be closed”.
This is also supported by organisations including the Safeguarding Alliance and the Tutors’ Association.
This amendment would put private tutors on the same legal footing as freelance sports coaches and mainstream teachers, close a bizarre safety loophole and contribute to making children’s lives safer. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am sorry that I raised this issue in the debate on an amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I was not aware of this situation until this morning, and I was dumbfounded. We have rightly made our schools very safe places for our children, and safeguarding is one of the key things that Ofsted inspections look at. As we have heard, the Sutton Trust says that about 30% of children aged between 11 and 16 have private tutoring, either in person or online.
Imagine a situation where a teacher in a school has been dismissed from their position after being arrested for a serious child sex offence, and might even have gone to prison if found guilty. They could do private tutoring if they were employed by a parent, with no safeguarding taking place. That surely cannot be right. This is not about criminalising parents who employ them—I do not think parents would be aware—but about making sure that, on Report, perhaps after conversations have been had with the Minister, this final loophole is sorted once and for all.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has made a very clear case that providers of online and in-person tuition services should be subject to the same safeguarding checks as those providing tuition in person, particularly in relation to the gap in the current legislation that he outlined. I agree completely on the importance of safety for children who receive private tuition and that those barred from teaching should not be able legally to offer their services directly to parents.
However, I have a slight hair shirt in relation to this issue, because I think that parents are ultimately responsible for checking out the tuition services that their children receive. Having a DBS check can contribute important information, but it is by no means sufficient. We know that the vast majority of sex offenders do not get reported to the police or end up with a criminal record, and their behaviour would not appear on a DBS check. There is a balance to be struck—in no way diluting the responsibility of parents while closing the loophole as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Storey (LD)
The noble Baroness might not be aware that not all agencies that employ tutors carry out checks.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I was aware of that, but my point on having clarity that parents need to think very carefully about who their child spends time with still stands.
Lord Storey (LD)
Parents might not have the wherewithal to know how to go about checking and would assume—wrongly, obviously—that if they employed a tutor from an agency, that tutor would have been cleared. If the tutor was not from an agency but employed directly, parents would assume that, because they were a teacher, they would have had safeguarding checks.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for initiating such an important debate, which has already had an effect by ensuring that more Members of your Lordships’ House are aware of this issue. His amendment would prompt a review of current safeguarding practices in private tuition, including background checks on tutors, and of the impact of activities defined as
“Regulated activity relating to children”
on private tuition settings.
This is an important issue and the Government recognise it as such. That is why we have already acted to improve the safety of children in private tuition, along with the wider out-of-school settings sector. The Government have published safeguarding e-learning for tutors and other providers, as well as strengthened guidance to help local authorities to act where there are safeguarding concerns. We are also widening the scope of regulated activity to include those who work frequently with children in supervised roles. This change will mean that employers engaging tutors in supervised roles can check whether the person is on the children’s barred list because the DBS considers them to pose a risk of harm to children.
The Government are also taking action to ensure that all those working in regulated activity with children can access enhanced barred lists checks, whether that is a teacher in a school or a self-employed tutor offering private tuition. With these measures, we will reduce the risk of a barred person working with children. However, we recognise the need to understand what more can be done. That is why we have also published a call for evidence on safeguarding in out-of-school settings. It will gather much of the information this amendment seeks and will help inform any future action to further enhance the safety of the sector. The deadline for submissions is 21 September, and I hope that noble Lords will actively participate in this consultation.
I want to take this opportunity to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about online DBS checks. Anyone who regularly teaches, trains, instructs, supervises or cares for children unsupervised is considered to be working in a regulated activity. This includes the majority of private tutors, whether they operate in person or online. By engaging in regulated activity, these individuals are eligible for and able to access an enhanced DBS check, with a check of the barred list if working as part of a tutoring organisation or engaged through an agency. We are legislating to extend this access to those who are self-employed.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those slightly more reassuring words, but the fact that it was news to all of us just shows how much work still has to be done. We will wait and see on this one, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hacking
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak with a certain amount of repentance, because this amendment is too much of an overreach and I regret drafting it in that form. At earlier stages in the Bill, relating to Clause 31—this goes to my Amendment 233A—I found it necessary to seek to have taken out of the Bill provisions going over one, two or three pages. I proposed that for Clause 31 because there was far too much information being sought of parents and far too much of an obligation on local councils, which were being compelled to meet some 13 requirements as part of the process.
This is an overreach on my part, and I apologise. It is very important that the local council has full powers to issue school attendance orders. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I have mentioned, there is a great worry about the number of children—some 10,000 was the figure given—who are not having any education at all. Therefore, local authorities should be diligent about finding where these children are and issue the necessary number of school attendance orders.
I support Clause 32 until the top of page 66, where there is a requirement for the recipient of the school attendance order to provide the information within 15 days. That is a very tight timetable for ordinary citizens, who would not be at all familiar with receiving an attendance order, which, presumably, is rather a scary experience. I suggest it should be a longer period, but that is the only revision I am now seeking under this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I was going to speak to Amendment 365, which is about appeals against a local authority’s decision not to revoke an attendance order. However, in light of the discussion we had about appeals in an earlier session in July, I had intended to withdraw this amendment, so I will not speak to it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Wei is concerned that we are not getting the balance right between the state and family, and I agree with him. It is the parents who have the primary responsibility for upbringing and the best interests of their child, and intervention by the state should be justified only in exceptional circumstances and must be proportionate. My noble friend feels that Clause 32, as drafted, risks tipping that balance the wrong way. Families already tell us that school attendance orders cause stress, anxiety and a sense of powerlessness. One parent said they were forced to send their child to school against her will, where her needs were not going to be met. They said, “We felt trapped, unheard, threatened and fearful for our daughter’s safety”. Another described a child with severe anxiety and seizures who has thrived only when withdrawn from school.
For many, home education is not elective but a response to systemic failures. I am sure the Government are aware of that, and what a mess the SEND system is at the moment. Many of the parents who home educate are doing so in response to a less than ideal system. I know we tried to improve the system, and that this Government are going to have another go; it is not easy. We must expect a continued flow of parents who choose to look after their own child because the state is not doing a good enough job, and be humble enough to recognise that that deserves our support and not continual harassment.
Amendment 334 would change the duty on local authorities to serve a preliminary notice from “must” to “may”. In the context of all the other discretions that local authorities have, it would be sensible to allow them to see that issuing a notice in a particular set of circumstances would do more harm than good. It would allow them to focus on the child’s welfare and not force them down a rigid path.
Amendment 335 would require that all relevant support be offered before issuing such a notice. This goes back to an earlier amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The first reaction of the local authority ought to be to ask if support is possible—can it help make this succeed?—as well as looking at whether school is a better option. It ought to come at this with support; families should not be threatened with orders without help being tried. The Square Peg campaign, supported by over 130 organisations, has called for a “support first” duty. One parent told us, “We asked for counselling and support, but what we got was a school attendance order. It only made my child’s anxiety worse”.
Amendment 338 asks in what circumstances a “best interest” test will be applied. Amendments 339 and 340 ask why just the existence of a Section 47 investigation is the trigger, rather than a consideration of whether that investigation has any relevance. Many Section 47 investigations are entirely unconnected to the suitability of a family for home education.
Amendment 341 looks at the question of how the local authority is in a position to judge best interests. What resources has the local authority got to enable it to do this? Why should the decision as to what a child’s best interests are be so hard for a parent to challenge? If it is not to be hard to challenge, what should the routes be?
Amendments 343, 344 and 345 are all concerned with the threat of a school attendance order not being a penalty for a minor infraction. I gather that the Government intend to put that in guidance, but it is important that parents understand that they are being judged by reasonable standards and are allowed to make ordinary mistakes—that they are walking a path and not a precipice.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
There are quite a lot of tweaks in this section, which suggests that it is perhaps not quite right and that it needs to be rewritten in some ways.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, just now that school is a very safe place, but I am sure he is well aware that school is not a safe place for everybody. Young people get bullied and it can be extremely distressing for some children, specifically if they have prior trauma, special educational needs or unmet needs, or have never attended school. There are all sorts of people for whom school is not the best and safest environment. I am trying to protect families who have already indicated that school is not meeting their child’s needs.
I hope we understand that local authorities sometimes judge in a completely erroneous way what families are doing with home education. We have discussed this, but I think Clause 32 is perhaps not fit for purpose.
Lord Storey (LD)
Truth be known, I struggle with the whole issue of attendance orders. Of course we want as many of our children as possible to be regular attenders at school or an education setting. When they are not at school, they are not learning—apparently. However, there are all sorts of reasons—I have two relevant amendments, I think in this group, which highlight particular groups of children—for this. The issue of bullying in schools has been raised. That can have a huge effect on children, making them literally petrified to go to school. It becomes a vicious circle then, with the local authority taking action and issuing attendance orders. There are also children with special educational needs. I had a pupil who had an absolute phobia of school attendance—I almost could not believe it. His mother, a hospital nurse, had to drag him to school every day. The whole thing was a constant battle. We have to think very carefully about this. There are certain groups of people for whom waving the stick of an attendance order is not the right approach. We have to look at other ways of increasing school attendance, and we have to be mindful of the situation they are in.
I always believed that parents who took their children on holiday during school time were wrong to do so. However, I reflected that the quality time they may have with their parents—often, perhaps more importantly, their dad—was hugely beneficial for them as a family, and that they learned so much as well. I hope we think this through very carefully before we enact it on Report.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group includes a series of amendments, including several from my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei, on the Government’s proposed approach to school attendance orders.
His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe it is important that local authorities are able to hold parents to account who are either not ensuring that their child attends school daily or not providing a suitable education at home. I appreciate some of the concerns that this could be seen as punitive by some families. Equally, if exceptions were introduced into the legislation, I worry that it would create a different risk, with inconsistent practice which is perceived to be unfair and could well be challenged in the courts.
I think, if I may say so, that the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred are actually in the next group. I appreciate that, with so many amendments today, it is hard to keep track.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
To continue where the noble Baroness finished, a child receiving unsuitable education for as little as a day could be detrimental for their educational development. The measures in the Bill seek to make this process more efficient, minimising the time in which a child may be receiving unsuitable education.
We have heard many speeches that highlight the rights of parents to educate their children how they wish. Parental choice is important, but it is crucial to remember that with rights come responsibilities. All children have a right to a suitable education, and parents have a responsibility to secure that education for their children. Where parents fail in this responsibility, there must be a consequence for the parent and a swift route to suitable education for the child.
The amendments in this group are focused on the school attendance order process. I turn first to address the opposition from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to Clause 32 standing part of the Bill. We believe that Clause 32 is essential. Without it, local authorities would have no power to act when parents refuse to comply with the children not in school registration duties, or where a child is not receiving a suitable education. Clause 32 allows local authorities to require school attendance where a child is subject to child protection investigations or plans and where school is deemed to be in the child’s best interests. This is a vital safeguard for some of our most vulnerable children.
As part of school attendance order proceedings, local authorities will be empowered to request to visit the child inside their home, so that they can fully consider the environment in which home education is being provided. Parents have the right to refuse the local authority’s request. If access is not given, this will be a relevant factor for the local authority to consider when deciding whether to serve an order.
The clause strengthens the current system by introducing timelines to make enforcement more efficient and to reduce prolonged periods in unsuitable education. It allows parents convicted of breaching a school attendance order to be prosecuted again if they continue to breach it, without requiring local authorities to restart the enforcement process. Aligning school attendance order fines with attendance fines will further incentivise parents to ensure children are registered at, and continue to be registered at, the named school.
I turn to Amendment 333A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, and Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 334 seeks to make the issuing of a preliminary notice when a child is not receiving suitable education, or when home education is not in the best interests of an eligible child, a discretionary act for local authorities. I will not respond to Amendment 333A, as I had intended to, given what my noble friend said. Making the process discretionary would create inconsistency. A mandatory preliminary notice ensures that there is definitive action when a local authority has reasons to believe that home education is not suitable for, or not in the best interests of, an eligible child.
Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require support to be offered before a preliminary notice could be issued. In cases where concerns about the suitability of education are serious or urgent, local authorities must be able to act without delay. Making support a legal precondition could inadvertently shield unsuitable provision from scrutiny. However, I appreciate that the noble Lord is concerned that a formal notice can be daunting for a parent to receive. We will consider what further guidance can be issued to parents and local authorities as part of the implementation of these measures to ensure that they can engage confidently with the process.
Amendments 338 and 341, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to prevent local authorities considering whether it would be in an eligible child’s best interests for them to receive education by regular school attendance as part of the preliminary notice for school attendance orders. It is important for me to explain the reasoning behind the best interests test in this context. Currently, local authorities have no recourse to require a child on a child protection plan or inquiry to attend school unless they can identify that the child is receiving unsuitable education. The best interests test requires local authorities to take action when they identify children subject to child protection inquiries or plans whose interests would be best served by regularly attending school, regardless of whether the education provided at home is considered suitable. Statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, provides clarity on what making best interests decisions means and will be further updated as part of the implementation of these measures.
Amendments 339 and 340, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove or limit the ability of the local authority to issue a preliminary notice when a child is subject to an active Section 47 child protection inquiry. Local authorities will be able to issue a preliminary notice under the relevant subsection only if it appears to them that the child subject to the Section 47 inquiry is not regularly attending school and that it would be in that child’s best interests to do so. A preliminary notice will not automatically result in a school attendance order.
It is also important to remember that such inquiries take place because Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 puts a duty on local authorities to make inquiries where it considers that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. These formal inquiries are not initiated lightly; their use signals serious concerns about a child’s welfare. Section 47 inquiries should not be initiated based purely on the fact that a parent is home-educating, as we are clear that home education is not in itself an inherent safeguarding risk. It is vital that local authorities have the means to gather information on the circumstances of at-risk children and determine whether their interests would be better served by regularly attending school.
Amendments 342 and 346, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Amendments 336, 337, 343, 344, 345 and 347, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the ability of local authorities to issue a preliminary notice when a parent has not provided information, or has provided incorrect information, for a children not in school register. This power is discretionary, and local authorities should not normally issue a preliminary notice in response to a genuine error by a parent but instead continue informal inquiries. However, without a consequence on parents for not providing the required information, the duty on them to provide information would be, in effect, redundant. This duty on parents is necessary to ensure that local authorities have the required information to ensure that education is suitable and safe. Local authorities must act promptly once it appears that action should be taken so there is no delay in providing appropriate support to children who need it. The timeframes in the school attendance order process strike the right balance between urgency and operational practicality. Removing them could lead to inconsistent and slower responses across different authorities, resulting in children potentially spending more time in unsuitable education.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, does not seek to press his Amendment 365. It would perhaps be best for me to deal with the set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei—which concern penalties for parents in a range of circumstances—by writing to noble Lords with some assurances about each of the amendments, rather than going through them all in this debate.
Finally, I address the stand part notice from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which seeks to remove Clause 35 from the Bill. Clause 35 introduces Schedule 2, which makes consequential amendments to existing legislation so that the new school attendance order process for local authorities in England and Wales is reflected in the Children Act 1989, the Education Act 1996 and other relevant legislation. The clause is necessary to ensure proper functioning of the process, and I urge that it stands part of the Bill.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments, and I urge that Clauses 32 and 35 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful, as ever, for the Minister’s responses, but I would be additionally grateful if she could write to me, between now and Report, to give me a much clearer idea of what the parental experience will be. For example, when faced with a best interests determination by a local authority that the parents consider to be seriously damaging to their child, how do they appeal it? What is the process for taking that through? Assuming that the local authority has it wrong, what is the full process that results in the parents being able to help the local authority understand the reality of their child’s circumstances and where their best interests really lie. With all the help that has been given, I still fail to get a grip on what that process will be and will feel like, and I would love to share that with home educators.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Is the noble Lord clear that the best interests requirement relates to cases where children are subject to child protection inquiries or plans?
Lord Lucas (Con)
Yes. It is only in about half of Section 47 where one would judge that that is a real problem. I understand and accept what the Government are saying about the need not to find that we are not covering children whom we need to cover, and that means that there are children going through the system for whom the dangers are not absolute, but if, for example, the child has deep school anxiety, or has really been bullied in the school, or the school has taken against them for some other reason and they have a horrid experience, and the local authority says, “Go back in”, what is the experience of the parent in appealing that? I do not have the grip on the details of the system that I would like.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, provided that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, does not want to make any more interventions, I will take this opportunity to close the debate.
Your Lordships heard that I was repenting; I pleaded guilty to overreach. I did not seek to press this amendment, but because an enormous number of amendments are listed after Amendment 333A, I felt it was right that all Members should have an opportunity to speak to any of the amendments in this group. Having said that, I have no hesitation in withdrawing this amendment and thanking my noble friend the Minister for her very careful and adequate replies.
Lord Lucas
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to facilitate debate of school attendance orders
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, this is another group that would be best served by my listening to what the Minister has to say: there are a lot of detailed bits and pieces in here. I would like to give the Minister comfort that, where I have put down an amendment such as Amendment 348 and the Member’s explanatory statement says
“to facilitate debate of school attendance orders”,
that is what I mean—I do not mean to wipe them out of the Bill. Sometimes her replies sound as if the civil servants regard me as Attila the Hun bearing down on them. No, it is just because of earlier comments made from the Bench opposite that they would like to have an amendment to debate and to stick to that amendment, so I have tabled amendments to enable us to debate, with no other malevolent intention towards the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, since I joined the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Amendment 348, I feel I should stand in repentance again, because this is a bad case of overreach and I regret it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this is the briefest of brief debates, so I think the Committee hangs on the Minister’s every word at this point. The group contains a large number of probing amendments, and my concern about the majority of them is that, again, they would introduce too great an element of variability in the application of school attendance orders, with the concomitant risk of perceived inconsistency and unfairness that I mentioned on the earlier group. I will not repeat those arguments. Suffice it to say that the data published by the department shows considerable disparity in the use of notices and school attendance orders, even between neighbouring local authorities such as Portsmouth and Southampton or East and West Sussex. There is a genuine issue that needs to be resolved in terms of bringing clarity to the criteria and the use of school attendance orders.
I also understand why several noble Lords have sought to lessen the penalties on those parents who fail to comply with the terms of school attendance orders, but I do not agree that it is appropriate, given the negative impact on children of missing out on a suitable education. Rather, I think we should support the Government to offer the most streamlined response so that decisions are taken transparently, consistently and speedily. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I think I should fit in Amendment 368—I apologise; I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to speak again—which is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for whose support I am again grateful. It recognises that higher fines, and especially imprisonment of the often lone parent, in fact betray the interests of the child. The Government do not collect information on the protected characteristics of those who are subject to these penalties, so they cannot assess their impact.
All the cases I saw when I was a magistrate were of people in poverty, and we know that Gypsies and Travellers have the lowest rate of economic activity of any ethnic group—47%, as opposed to 63% for England and Wales overall. A Prison Advice and Care Trust survey of 2023, apart from confirming the poverty I have alluded to, points to a range of research showing increased risky behaviour among prisoners’ children, poorer mental health outcomes and the potential lifelong negative impact of parental imprisonment. When a mother goes to prison, 95% of children have to leave home. This amendment would serve the interests of the child, which should of course be paramount, and I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept it.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I join my noble friend Lady Whitaker on removing the threat of imprisonment: it would be entirely inappropriate, and there are enough people already in prison.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as we continue to debate school attendance orders, we must never lose sight of the child at the heart of this. A child gets one chance at an education, and that is why our processes must act swiftly, decisively and in the best interests of the child.
Amendments 348, 349, 350 to 352, 358, 362, 363 and 367 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, look to remove or alter the ability for a school attendance order to be served. Amendment 348 seeks to remove the entire school attendance order section. I accept that that may not be the purpose or intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so let me move on to Amendment 349, which would mean that a local authority could serve an order on parents of children who had historically been subject to a Section 47 child protection inquiry or plan, even if this is no longer the case and the child is receiving a suitable education. It would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve an order in these situations. If a Section 47 inquiry has concluded and not resulted in a child protection plan, parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child’s best interests. If the notice was also issued on the grounds that the local authority was not satisfied as to the suitability of education, the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable.
Amendment 350 would require local authorities to consider only the major educational settings used by a child, and Amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to serve a school attendance order. Settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authority’s suitability assessment. Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education. It is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action.
Turning to Amendment 352, I hope the noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in new Section 436I under the Bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries of families as part of the school attendance order process. Amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide formal reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued. Local authorities are already subject to public law duties, and this includes providing reasons for decisions. Statutory guidance will ensure that local authorities are given clear advice and expectations on these matters.
Amendments 358, 363 and 367 would prevent a school attendance order being enforced or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in the jurisdiction. This would be a significant loophole. A parent could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily, or claim to have done so, and thereby avoid compliance. Ultimately, this amendment is unnecessary because, once such an order is made, there are already mechanisms for parents to apply for it to be varied or revoked should they move school or demonstrate that suitable education is to be provided outside school.
Amendment 362 seeks to ensure that, if a parent has asked that a private school is named in a school attendance order, an order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable. The intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills if their financial circumstances change. As previously mentioned, the parent can simply apply to the local authority to have the order amended to name another school if they can no longer afford the fees of the school named in the order.
Amendments 356 and 359 seek to remove timelines on parts of the school attendance order process. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to probe whether sufficient time is built into the process for informing a school when it is to be named in a school attendance order. I can reassure noble Lords that it is. New Section 436L in the Bill outlines that a local authority must serve a school nomination notice on a school which it intends to name in an order. If the school disagrees with the decision, it has 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers for a direction.
Amendments 349A and 362A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to prevent a school attendance order being issued to any child who has an education, health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance or is eligible for special educational needs support. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children. That would limit the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question. We recognise that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships.
Amendments 364 and 391, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 367A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seek to amend the process for revoking a school attendance order. Amendment 364 would require a local authority to establish and consult a panel that includes home-educating parents when considering a revocation request. This would be wholly inappropriate. To come to a decision on whether to revoke an order, it is likely that the local authority will need to consider a range of information about the child’s education and personal circumstances. I cannot imagine that many parents would want this sort of sensitive information shared with a jury of other parents.
Amendment 391 seeks to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if their child has been required to attend school through a school attendance order. The existing process affords sufficient opportunity for parents to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school.
Do I understand correctly that my noble friend Lord Hacking is not now pushing Amendment 367A?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Right. I will turn then to Amendments 368, tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, and Amendment 369, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei. These amendments seek to amend the maximum fine for a breach of a school attendance order. I understand that the prospect of fines is worrying for parents. However, a parent runs the risk of a fine only if they breach the order. The consequence of breaching a school attendance order must be brought in line with the offence of unauthorised school absences. This removes the perverse incentive for a parent to remove their child from school under the guise of home education to avoid higher school attendance fines.
Amendment 371, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the court to consider the best interests of the child when sentencing a parent for breaching a school attendance order. Courts in England and Wales must already consider the impact on the child when determining sentences, as per Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
There is a series of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, that have not been addressed in the debate. As I did previously, I will write to noble Lords responding to those amendments. I hope that, given the assurances that I have provided, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment, and other noble Lords will not move theirs.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, that was a thoroughly satisfactory set of answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
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.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, again, this is a group of amendments on which I would largely prefer to wait for the Minister’s reply. However, I have a particular interest in where the Government find themselves when it comes to visiting children at home, how that should be done and the circumstances in which it need not be done. A lot of what we have been discussing is about producing a system, a set of relationships between home educators and the local authority, meaning that most children get seen anyway in the course of activities in which the local authority is involved—by professionals who are qualified to make judgments on how the child is flourishing and to flag if there seems to be a problem. I am confident that, in a well-run local authority, the need to visit at home should be much reduced. None the less, there will be circumstances where this seems to be necessary, and it always produces conflict.
I am interested in the Government’s thoughts on how they will approach this. How will a well-run local authority deal with circumstances when it feels that it needs to see the child? How will a parent who feels that their child will react extremely badly to this intrusion have their voice heard? I am also interested in the potential role of third parties, such as the family doctor —for those who still have one—to mediate in that process.
For the rest of the amendments in this group that I am responsible for, I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will weigh in just on Amendment 417. Home-educating families having a flexible school term calendar will mean they benefit financially for holidays because, as we know, during school holidays, holidays shoot up in price. Would it not be nice if all schools had the luxury of cheap holidays for their children? Maybe the Government could look at the eminently sensible suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, on holidays, and see whether in some way holiday companies could be equitable with all school families and not hike up their prices during the holiday period.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this group again covers a large number of very technical amendments. Some of them appear to me to be at the more speculative rather than the probing end of the spectrum. They highlight a number of issues in relation to home-educating families and home visits, but the majority of these suggestions, as put in these amendments, would be very challenging for any Government to justify in terms of the potential resources that would be required to implement them.
My noble friend Lord Lucas rightly raised the issues around home visits and the pressure that they put on families. I hope that the Minister can reassure us that local authorities understand that too and would use those powers when necessary, and always in the best interests of the child. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the voice of the child is key in creating a supportive, responsive and effective safeguarding and educational environment. I believe that the best way for a local authority to ensure that a child’s education is both suitable and safe is to meet with the child in the child’s home. We want to ensure that local authorities are able to capture and appropriately consider the views of children, so advice on how to conduct these visits sensitively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, rightly suggested is required, will be a key focus of our statutory guidance.
In terms of the ask on parents, we have aimed for this to be proportionate and at the right intervals. The purpose is to minimise the duration any child is in receipt of unsuitable education. The compulsory information is what is required for a local authority to undertake existing responsibilities related to education suitability and safeguarding. It is not intended to be disruptive to the parents, who will still be able to focus on providing a suitable education for their child.
The amendments in this group seek to make changes to the ability of a local authority to request to visit the home and to limit the potential impact on home-educating families. They also seek to make provision concerning how home educators may engage with and would like to be treated by national and local government.
I am going to suggest that the amendments brought by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, beginning with Amendment 406, might be suitable for me to write to noble Lords about. Several of them fall within the category defined by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, as being at the “speculative end” of the spectrum. I hope I would be able to either reassure noble Lords or identify why they would not be suitable to be carried forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, makes a broader point with respect to Amendment 417 about holidays, and I am sure this is something that we cannot solve here this evening, but I recognise the concerns that parents have.
I will deal with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Amendment 353 seeks to remove the local authority’s power to request to visit a child at home to determine whether a school attendance order should be served. I hope I have already identified the approach that we will expect local authorities to take with respect to visits. This ability to request to visit the child at home allows the local authority to see the environment in which home education is being provided and to meet the child. Without this, local authorities may not be able to form a comprehensive view of whether the home environment is conducive to the child’s education. Parents will be able to refuse such a request, but, if they do, the local authority must consider this refusal to be a relevant factor when determining whether to issue a school attendance order.
Amendments 354 and 355 would require a local authority to obtain a court order to request to visit a child at home and to consider a child’s reaction to persons in authority when determining whether to serve a school attendance order. A court order would be unnecessary as the local authority would only be making a request, which parents have a right to refuse. On the point about sensitivity, though, I can assure noble Lords that our statutory guidance will provide further steers to help local authorities sensitively conduct visits, and we will consider whether additional support is needed, such as training for local authority staff.
I hope that I have assured noble Lords that the ability to request a visit is an important opportunity for the local authority, but that these visits will be carried out sensitively, and, if necessary, we will provide further statutory guidance on how that should happen. I will respond to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in writing to noble Lords.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s response to my amendments. I would be grateful for a brief response to the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Wei—just a confirmation, I suspect, when it comes to Amendment 387, of the recognition that there is a lot to say about the methodology of home education and the curriculum, and similarly, on Amendment 393, confirmation that the timing of educational progress, which should in principle be respected, can form part of a suitable education.
I have met a very capable young Oxford undergraduate who did not begin to write until they were 13. Having learned entirely through other methods and found writing extremely difficult, he was able to move on to a keyboard aged 13 and get himself eventually to Oxford. The generality, which is picked up in my noble friend’s amendment, of not beginning formal education until seven is very common on the continent. There are structures which do not impose reading, writing and arithmetic before that age and which succeed on a national level.
The understanding that the Government recognise that there are other routes to educational success, and that this is something that local authorities do not understand, is of general interest, rather more so than some of my noble friend’s more focused amendments.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
On those points, I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that the law is already clear. We have discussed during the course of the debate that parents have the right to educate their children using the methods, approaches and content they think best, provided that the education being received is suitable and safe. The point, though, is that local authorities must be able to assess that education to establish whether or not it is. The Bill does not give local authorities any additional powers to regulate the content of home education.
On the point about the nature of education, we believe that a child must be provided with a suitable education from the age of five. Of course, the point about home education is that it would be up to parents, assuming that that education is suitable, to determine what sort of education was being provided to a child of five.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, as we are in the closing straight. Can the Government confirm that they accept that flexibility of approach is something that will happen? If we look laterally—says the dyslexic—at special educational needs, that is often what is required there. Some of the problems come from the fact that there is a structure that one is supposed to be doing, but not everybody learns like that. Can the Government confirm that this is something which should be worked across the education system?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have just confirmed that, and we have talked about it at various different times with respect to home education. I completely accept that one of the reasons why parents want to home-educate is to provide different and more flexible approaches to the way in which children learn. The most appropriate methods for learning and teaching will have to be at the heart of not just the Government’s reforms to special educational needs and disabilities but the very hard work that teachers and schools do for those children.
Lord Storey
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is connected to another in the name of Lord Storey which seeks to prevent school attendance orders being applied to children with an education, health and care plan.
Lord Storey (LD)
I think I have already spoken on Amendments 359A and 366A, albeit in the wrong grouping, so I will leave it there, except to ask the Minister if the letters he writes to the noble Lord, Lord Wei, will be available in the Library for all of us to see.
Lord Lucas (Con)
In the spirit of previous groups, I would very much like to listen to the Minister’s replies.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, these amendments relate to children, particularly those with education, health and care plans, and the use of school attendance orders. If I understood correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, argued through amendments in earlier groups and Amendments 359A and 366A in this group that these children should be excluded from the school attendance order regime. I outlined my concerns, which remain the same, about introducing inconsistency into a system where we already have incredible variability in how school attendance orders are used.
I have spoken to families who have a child with an education, health and care plan who are considering educating them at home. They have expressed concerns that the local authority can be particularly resistant to that because of the financial costs, which are sometimes related to the physical and medical therapies—health therapies—that a child might need. It would help if the Minister could comment on those fears. Equally, a child in receipt of an EHCP clearly has more complicated educational needs and it is entirely reasonable that the local authority should consider that carefully and ensure that the parents are able to deliver on their wish to support their child at home.
I confess I am unclear what material difference Amendment 360 would make to the Bill, but maybe the Minister will shed light.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as I said previously, the school attendance order process is an existing process that is absolutely essential to provide children in unsuitable education a route to suitable education through regular attendance at a school.
In speaking to the amendments in group 15, I turn to Amendments 360 and 361, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They seek to require a local authority to review rather than amend an education, health and care plan where the authority is required to serve a school attendance order in respect of a child and the plan does not specify the name of a school. If a local authority is serving a school attendance order, it has determined that the child is not receiving a suitable education and that the situation must be resolved. In this situation, it is right that the education, health and care plan be amended to name a school and that the school attendance order reflect this. This will enable the child to be enrolled in that school without delay.
The noble Lord may be concerned that parents will not have the opportunity to influence the school named in the order and the education, health and care plan. I reassure him that local authorities will still be required to follow the processes outlined in Regulation 22 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. These regulations require that local authorities send parents a notice outlining the changes to the plan. Additionally, the child’s parents can request a review of the plan at any point if they believe that the school is not meeting their child’s needs.
Amendment 366, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove the right to refer questions on school attendance orders in Wales to Welsh Ministers and delete the clause preserving the existing education, health and care plan framework. Parents must have a right to appeal a local authority decision to refuse to revoke a school attendance order, regardless of whether that local authority is in England or Wales. The mirror provisions in the Bill reflect our commitment to making the process as consistent as possible for families in both nations.
As previously mentioned, parents of children on education, health and care plans already have recourse to have the school on a school attendance order amended. The amendment would mean that duplicate processes would run concurrently, potentially resulting in confusion for local authorities, parents and schools.
I turn now to Amendments 359A and 366A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children, limiting the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question.
We recognise, as I said earlier, that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Storey (LD)
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Lucas
“Protection of home education rights during emergency or authoritarian rule(1) In the event of a national emergency or authoritarian governance, the courts shall have the final authority to safeguard the right to home educate in accordance with this Act.(2) Authoritarian governance shall be defined as any period during which emergency regulations or executive actions suspend, limit, or derogate from rights protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 or the European Convention on Human Rights.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to protect the legal right to home educate in exceptional national circumstances by placing judicial oversight above executive restrictions.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I apologise that my final remarks will be slightly negative in tone, but I cannot support this amendment. It is not appropriate to have such a measure in primary legislation. I do not agree with my noble friend’s definition of authoritarian rule, nor with his prioritisation, if we were in a time of genuine national emergency.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will speak to this amendment in group 16, which is about the right to home-educate. I reiterate—it feels right to be doing this at the end of this debate, as I did at the start—that parents have the right to educate their child in the way that best suits their needs, if that education is suitable. The Bill does not change that.
Amendment 378, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to protect a parent’s right to home-educate in the event of a national emergency or an authoritarian Government. First, this amendment would be ineffective, as Parliament is sovereign. Any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by a future Parliament. However, existing legislation is clear that most parents have the right to educate their child otherwise than at school provided that the education their child receives is both safe and suitable. This Government support that right. I hope that, on that basis of reassurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we seem to have gone awfully quickly. On that basis, may I ask that we adjourn during pleasure for five minutes in order for all participants in the next business to make their way to the Chamber? Therefore, the House will resume at 7.16 pm.
Borders and Asylum
(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the wave of protests over the summer in opposition to the continuing use of hotels to house asylum seekers has evidently forced the Government’s hand. They have now been in office for over a year and, unfortunately, the situation at the border has deteriorated. We have seen some 29,300 people cross the channel in small boats to gain unlawful entry into the UK since Labour took office—the highest ever figure.
Regrettably, the Home Secretary did not offer an explanation yesterday as to why she thinks these figures have increased. Might I suggest to the Minister that the reason illegal crossings have reached a historic high is because the Government scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it was even able to begin repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act and have failed to effectively implement policies to deter those who would attempt the crossing?
One major policy the Government have pursued, the returns deal with France, has yet to bear any results. The Home Secretary has stated that the Government are moving faster than the Conservatives were with Rwanda, obviously forgetting that the reason the Rwanda policy was delayed was because the Labour Party voted against it over 130 times. Although I appreciate that it is early days and this is just a pilot, can the Minister confirm when the Home Office will be sending the first people back to France? Is there yet a timeframe in place?
In the Statement, the Home Secretary stated that the Government have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here. Unfortunately, that statistic is highly misleading. The Home Office data for the year ending June 2025 shows that enforcement returns—people who are subject to removal or deportation by the Home Office—for the previous year stood at 9,072 people. The number of voluntary returns—those people who were liable to be removed but chose to leave the UK before being deported—was 26,761. It is the combination of these two figures that make up the 35,000 returns claim. Clearly, the vast majority of returns are therefore voluntary returns, not enforced deportation action by the Home Office. Is it not highly misleading for the Government to claim that they have removed 35,000 people when in fact most of those left of their own accord and they have only removed 9,072 people themselves? The figure is being used to mask the reality of failure to get a grip on the crisis at the border, smash the gangs and close down all remaining asylum hotels.
The Home Secretary—I am sure the Minister will not fail to repeat this—made the point that the hotels were opened under the last Government, and that this Government have been taking action to close them. Unfortunately, what she omitted from her Statement was that the previous Government were taking action to reduce the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels. From the peak of 56,042 in September 2023, we reduced that number to 29,585 in June 2024, but since this Government have been in office, that number has only increased. It jumped to 38,079 in December of last year and, as of 30 June, stands at 32,059. That is a 7.7% increase from when the Conservatives left government.
Furthermore, in the run-up to the election, the Conservative Government closed down 200 of these hotels. Had that rate of closure continued, there would be no hotels housing asylum seekers today. What is evident is that this Government have not continued with that pace of closure; nor are they taking enough action to deter and remove those who enter this country illegally.
The Home Secretary repeated the claim several times during her Statement in the other place that the Opposition are “resisting” and “opposing” the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in this House. She even insinuated that we are attempting to slow the passage of the Bill. I must say to the Minister that I take issue with that characterisation. We have had three days in Committee on the Bill so far and are due to finish Committee stage next Monday—one day earlier than initially scheduled.
On a number of aspects, including the new immigration offences, we have supported the Government trying to toughen up the system. Indeed, I welcome the announcement in this Statement that the Government will be pausing refugee family reunion to tackle the large increase in the number of people applying to bring family members to the UK after a very short period. What we do resist, however, is the Government’s opposition to many of our proposals—or perhaps I should say “previous opposition”, since much of what the Home Secretary proposed yesterday has already been raised in this Chamber by those of us on these Benches.
This morning, the Home Secretary mentioned the number of students who arrive in the UK on a student visa and then go on to claim asylum, stating that she wants to “clamp down” on this “back-door” route. I entirely agree, which is why I tabled Amendment 193 to the border security Bill, which would prevent any person making an asylum claim more than one year after they have entered the UK. This would prevent precisely that scenario occurring. It has yet to be debated, but I am sure that the Minister will support it when we come to debate it.
One of the main announcements in the Statement is the establishment of a new body to deal with asylum and immigration appeals. If this is established quickly and efficiently, it may be able to help reduce the processing of appeals. However, several questions remain. Will this body deal only with administrative appeals made to the Home Office, or will it also deal with judicial appeals, which are currently made to the asylum and immigration chamber? Secondly, will the Government now be supporting our further Amendment 138 to the border security Bill, which would prevent a person appealing against a deportation order made under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act?
Finally, can the Minister confirm how these changes will be made, and when? Will the Government be bringing amendments to the border security Bill on Report in this House to implement these new policies?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the Government that the Conservatives “trashed” our asylum system, leaving the backlog spiralling out of control. We also agree that there is no silver bullet to deal with that failure. However, the Government have so far failed to get a grip on the problem as a whole. There may be a glimmer of hope that a comprehensive policy will emerge from the content of this Statement, so we will scrutinise carefully any plan that flows from it. But the real solutions lie in speeding up processing, so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned, providing safe routes to claim asylum, and ensuring that those with valid claims can get jobs, integrate and contribute to the community.
However, the closure of the family reunion route, albeit temporarily, is a sign that the Government are responding to current events rather than laying out what the complete reform would look like. We are deeply concerned by proposals to tighten family reunion rules and by what we are told will be the reduction of the move-on period from 56 days back to 28, much to the dismay of local authorities throughout our land. The Home Office itself acknowledges that a lack of safe alternative routes contributes to small boat crossings, so cutting these routes risks making that crisis worse. Refugees are not at an equal starting point. They have been forced to leave their homes and families, often in grave danger, and family reunion is crucial for their settlement and integration. What assessment has been made of the risk that tighter family reunion rules will push more families into the hands of people-smuggling gangs?
Regarding the new independent body and fast-track appeals, how will it be resourced to meet the 24-week target, and will there be a recruitment drive for asylum caseworkers to ease the backlog? Given the similarities of these roles to those of JPs, what timescale have the Government got in mind for, first, identifying suitable candidates and, secondly, training them in the legislative framework to undertake such duties? Furthermore, can the Minister guarantee that local authorities will be properly funded by government to support asylum accommodation, rather than having it imposed without consultation? We need a humane and efficient system, not one that continues to fail vulnerable people.
The UK-France returns deal, as we apparently know now, will see its first exchange of people at the end of this month. Can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale for expanding what looks like very small numbers at the beginning?
Finally, what safeguards will ensure that the fast-track appeals process proposed does not compromise fairness or lead to more judicial reviews later? Refugees are entitled to be supported as well. It will be interesting to note what the Government propose to be the manner in which that system will actually proceed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their initial questions.
I will start, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He makes the allegation that the Government are responding to the protests that have taken place around the country in August of this year, which were relatively small in number. I reassure him that the Government have a very strong plan to remove the mess in which his Government left the asylum system, the hotel backlog and the small boats crisis. The actions that we are taking are part of a long-term wider plan, which includes the immigration Bill that we will debate further tomorrow, to ensure that we resolve this issue in a way that meets our international obligations and, at the same time, deals with the issues that we all have a common interest in removing. I remind the noble Lord that this August saw the lowest number of boats for that month for four years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord heckles from a sedentary position. We have been in office for 13 months now, and we have taken action—which relates, as I will come to, to what the noble Lord, Lord German, said—to establish a border command under the immigration Bill, to put in new powers to tackle small boats, which will be taking place shortly, and to scrap the Rwanda scheme that his Government put in place, which wasted £700 million of taxpayers money and removed, from memory, two people, both of whom went voluntarily. We are now using that resource to up the amount of money we are investing in speeding up asylum claims. In speeding up asylum claims, we are doing what we should be doing: assessing people and determining who has asylum and who does not.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned some figures in his contribution. Some 35,000 people with no right to abode in the UK have been removed in the past 12 months. That is up on his Government’s performance—a 28% increase in failed asylum seekers being removed. We have had a 14% increase in the removal of foreign national offenders, and an increase of 50% in the number of illicit work raids that we are undertaking to make sure that we maintain standards in employment.
I am afraid the noble Lord cannot get away from the fact that in 2015 there were very few hotels in operation, and we reached a massive peak under his Government. We are trying now to reduce that peak by closing hotels, and we are doing so by speeding up the asylum claims that he and his Government allowed to remain. So, with due respect to the noble Lord, I am not going to take lessons from him on how to manage asylum, immigration or small boats when the problems that we have inherited are ones that his Government and his Home Office oversaw as a whole.
However, the noble Lord asked some reasonable questions, and I will try to establish some information for him. He asked about the new commission that we are establishing. We will set out further details on it in due course and ensure that we clarify and put into the public domain the roles the commission will have. We will ensure that the commission is paid for with existing departmental budgets, so there is no extra cost to the taxpayer for that. To the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, we will ensure that people have time to have rigorous training in decision-making and expertise to make decisions on appeal cases. I say again to all noble Lords that we are doing that to speed up the asylum appeal process that led to the highest asylum backlog in the history of asylum backlogs, under the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We are trying to speed up those claims because, ultimately, we need to determine someone’s right to abode in the UK under asylum, and if they do not have a right then we need to remove them. The previous Government did neither of those things to any effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the French scheme. Noble Lords will know that under the previous Government no attempts at all were made to discuss with the French the issue on the beaches of France in relation to small boats. The noble Lord again shakes his head. Perhaps at some future time, when he gets an opportunity, he could write to me and tell me what agreements were struck with the French regarding small boats and beaches. There were none, and because there were none, we have had to pick that up. Over the past 12 months we have negotiated with the French, and we have a returns agreement in place. That agreement is a pilot scheme. It has not yet removed people to a great extent, as the noble Lord knows, but it is a pilot that we are monitoring and evaluating. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, we intend to remove and exchange the first individuals under the scheme by the end of this month. The pilot will be evaluated and monitored, and I hope it will prove a benefit.
As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, knows, because I tell him every time we have this discussion, we have had agreements with the French, the Belgians, the Dutch—the Calais Group—to take action. We have established a proper agreement with the Germans for the first time, to look at how we can stop boat manufacture and sale upstream, and we are putting extra effort into bringing people to justice so that we now have people before the courts for people-smuggling offences. There is going to be a difference between us because the noble Lord, Lord Davies, believes in the Rwanda scheme and I do not, but ultimately it is about delivery on these issues, and this Government, 13 months in, are beginning to deliver on them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his welcome for some of the measures in the Statement. I welcome his support over Border Security Command, the speeding up of asylum claims, the new powers in the Bill and the pledge to close hotels, because he is right that we need to ensure that we speed up the asylum backlog left by the previous Government. Those matters are in train at the moment, and we will continue to examine them.
As I have already mentioned, the French scheme will run in pilot form until the end of this month, but we hope to secure some action on that very quickly. I hope the issue regarding the new scheme of the appeals board, which I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord German, and have already mentioned in response to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is good.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord German, has concerns, which I recognise, about the family removal issue. I say to him that we intend to ensure that, at a date very shortly in the future, we bring forward a statutory instrument that will end the family reunion issue on a temporary basis while we review family reunion for a longer period. We are doing that for the straightforward reason that the number of family reunions has increased dramatically. I shall give him the figures now: over the seven years from 2015 to 2022, approximately 5,500 individuals were granted refugee family reunion each year. In 2024, 19,709 individuals arrived via this route—a 111% increase, which is just not sustainable. We need to review that, work on it and take action accordingly. At a date very shortly, we will lay a statutory instrument that will suspend the scheme and we will bring forward a revised scheme at a date in future when we are able to do so. The suspension is temporary while we undertake a full review and reform of current family rules.
In the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord German, has asked a legitimate question: what do individuals who want to have family reunion do? They are quite able to apply as of now. Whenever the new scheme comes into effect, we will honour family reunion applications to the date when the scheme was suspended. We will then be able to examine any further family reunion routes through other means on the normal route for family reunion that will take place. We will bring forward in very short order a revised scheme that I hope will address some of the issues that, in my view, need to be tightened.
I say to all noble Lords that there is a common issue here and we should try to address it. That is what I am trying to do with the proposals before the House today.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
Before we move on to the 20 minutes of protected time for Back-Benchers, I want to make it clear that this is 20 minutes for Back-Benchers only and that the form of the Back-Bench contributions should be questions on the Statement and not speeches.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I wish to raise a question about the legal obstacles to immigration. I suggest that it would be helpful if the Government produced a consultation document setting out in detail the obstacles that they believe arise with regard to immigration policy. I have in mind a consultation document identifying treaties, conventions, international obligations and domestic procedures and laws that may stand in the way of an effective immigration policy. When we have that kind of consultation document, we can have a more informed discussion as to what we should do about it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the suggestion from the noble Viscount. He will know that we have published an immigration White Paper, which trails a number of potential measures that are going to be looked at in principle, including Article 8 of the ECHR and a range of other measures that we are going to put in place. The immigration White Paper trails those issues because, for the very reason that he has mentioned, we want to ensure that there is further consultation on some of the key issues.
My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are in constant discussion with countries that were our former European Union partners, as well as countries outside the European Union, about what needs to be done in relation to the pressures and those legal issues. There were meetings in May this year between European Union countries and non-European countries of which Britain was part, and there will be further discussions. I hope that, if the noble Viscount looks at the immigration White Paper, he will see that there is a range of trails that will lead to further policy discussions in due course.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, in 2019 Boris Johnson and the Conservative Government stood on a slogan of taking back control of our borders and our laws. Over the next four years, we saw record levels of immigration and a shambolic and dysfunctional asylum system. Over the summer, we have seen the extreme right try to weaponise this subject, intimidating communities throughout the nation. In spite of that, ordinary people have genuine concerns about the levels of immigration. One particularly relevant issue is foreign prisoners. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to ensure that foreign prisoners who come to the end of their sentences are deported?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
To live in this country requires basic adherence to tenets of good behaviour, and if foreign nationals commit offences then they should be deported at the end of their sentence. My noble friend will know, I hope, that, since 5 July 2024, 5,179 foreign national offenders have been removed from the United Kingdom. That is an increase of 14% over the previous year and one that we intend to further increase for those foreign nationals who have abused the privilege of being a resident of the United Kingdom by committing an offence. That is coupled with the other issues he mentioned, such as a 13% increase in returns and a 24% increase in enforced returns. But the key to all of this, ultimately, is to speed up the asylum system and make sure that, when someone arrives and claims asylum, that asylum claim is dealt with speedily and effectively. That is what the new body announced in the Statement and the efforts we have made to date are really going to be focused on.
Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)
My Lords, the Statement from the Home Secretary contains many laudable aspirations, and I am sure we can all agree that the timing of implementation is of paramount importance as numbers seem to be growing, deepening a sense of crisis, notwithstanding August’s favourable figures. One of the proposed measures, and a potentially important one, is to seek reform of the ECHR and especially Article 8. To change the operation of the ECHR would require the agreement of 46 signatories and presumably take many years, but I notice that the Statement refers to
“reforming the way that the European Convention on Human Rights is interpreted here at home”,
which is, I presume, a way of speeding up the process of reform. I have a very simple question. How do the Government propose to implement this change in interpretation and in what sort of timeframe?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a very valid question, and I am grateful for the broad support that the noble Lord has given to the proposals before us. We have said in the immigration Bill, and we have said publicly, that we want to look at how Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family life, is interpreted. We have seen wide interpretation of Article 8 to ensure that individuals can protect themselves against deportation when asylum claims have failed. In the next few months—and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me on this—we intend to issue a further consultation on what we need to do on that. It does not involve us, as some political parties and others would want, leaving the ECHR; I hope it will revise the guidance so judges can examine it and make different judgments accordingly, based on the information that we will ultimately supply.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the detailed and carefully worked-out proposal put forward at the end of last month by the Refugee Council. Its plan could close asylum hotels by the end of next year by putting in place a one-off scheme to give permission to stay for a limited period, subject to rigorous security checks, to people who are almost certain to be recognised as refugees. The proposal applies to people from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Syria who were in the system on 30 June. That would represent four in 10 of the people in asylum hotels from those countries—more than 33,000 people in total in Home Office accommodation. To take some examples, 98% of Sudanese who apply for refugee status receive it, and yesterday in your Lordships’ House there was a great deal of discussion of how terrible things are in Sudan; and 86% of Eritreans receive it. Have the Government considered this carefully thought-out proposal, put forward by the Refugee Council, or anything like it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are open to a range of discussions on any issue because it is a manifesto commitment for us to end hotel use by the end of this Parliament. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, myself and others in government want to do that as quickly as possible, but—and I say this, I hope, helpfully to the noble Baroness—we have to do this in an ordered, managed fashion. We are trying to do that in an ordered, managed fashion now by reducing the level of hotel use as a whole, filling up the remaining hotels so that we maximise their use and looking at how we can exit those hotels over time. In the past 12 months, we have saved around £1 billion of taxpayers’ money by the measures that we have taken. We have had limited success to date in reducing the number of hotels, but we intend to speed that up. The suggestions that have been made will always be examined, but the ultimate objective for the noble Baroness, the Refugee Council and for us is to make sure that we exit hotels, speed up asylum claims and make sure that those who have asylum claims are dealt with and allowed to remain in the United Kingdom with a properly adjudicated, speedy asylum claim.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Immigration Minister in this country and say that I sympathise with anybody who has to conduct the business of immigration, particularly with the pressures we have now. I very much welcome most of what the Government are now proposing. I hope it is possible for us to avoid a build-up of rhetoric, which I am afraid I have seen from all quarters, particularly the more extreme quarters in our country, in recent months.
I will contain myself to asking two simple questions. One is in relation to family reunion. I think it is right to say that the majority of people coming by boat seem to be very young men—of course, we have always had many people arriving to seek asylum in other ways—and in that sense I feel that we can resist the question of family reunion rather more positively than with different age groups and types. I wonder whether the Minister would confirm whether he thinks that particular part of the policy could be successful.
Secondly, does the Minister agree that perhaps we need to make sure that our officials are rather better educated on the 1951 refugee convention, which of course is the basis of all asylum granting? We seem to be allowing a lot of people to come to this country and to have asylum—which is a very valuable thing to grant—without really pursuing the very narrow criteria that grant that asylum. Therefore, the percentage of people who are being granted at first instance has shot up enormously, certainly from my day, and I think it is too high. My own view is that we need to make sure that our officials are clear and fair, but that they stay with those criteria in their deliberations and decisions.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord is one of the former Ministers in this House who have dealt with immigration, I know he will understand very clearly the challenges the Government face and the difficulties we have in delivering on these issues. I very much welcome his comments and suggestions.
With regard to family reunion, one of the reasons that we are going to lay the SI very shortly and put a temporary suspension on family reunion is so that we can review how it is being applied at the moment. I mentioned the figures earlier but they are always worth repeating: there was a 111% increase on 2023 and a 378% increase on 2022. Some examination is obviously needed of who is being granted family reunion and why. That is why the temporary suspension is on. We will bring forward legislation to bring that into effect at some point and will review the operation of family reunion. The points that the noble Lord has made will be part of that consideration as a whole.
The noble Lord’s second point is also well made and I will certainly examine those comments. In the interest of time, for now, I hope it will help him to have had some answers to his questions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for being a few seconds late; the unexpectedly early start took me by surprise.
Does the Minister agree—I am sure he will at least agree with this point—that it is important that the language everyone uses on this subject is as moderate and careful as it can be? Otherwise, feelings are inflamed and the situation is corrosive. It is important to be positive about the contribution to our society and economy of immigrants. I make this point about language having talked to a friend who attended a protest—a counterprotest, if you like—in support of refugees at a local hotel. She was perfectly clear that there were a lot of people there protesting who were there because they wanted to take part in a general ruck. In fact, one of them said to the highly qualified doctor she was with, “Oh, you ought to learn to read a book”. That is a serious point.
I am glad that we will have the opportunity to debate family reunion because it is, after all, a safe route. It would be perverse if we stopped a safe route. The Minister said we will have the opportunity to discuss the new independent body. Can he tell the House now whether people—I do not know whether they will be called appellants or applicants—will be entitled to legal representation before that body?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and the tone in which she has put them. She is absolutely right about the debate on migration, illegal migration, asylum and border control. In my view it is a challenge and a difficult issue, but I hope that between the three main parties represented here and those individuals from the Cross Benches and others, we can have that debate in a civilised way. I also hope that in the country at large it can be debated in a civilised way.
There is an important issue to discuss about who we allow into the country for immigration purposes and how. There is an important issue of how we stop illegal migration, and an important issue of how we manage and meet our international obligations on asylum. The Government, in these 13 months, have brought forward a White Paper on the first issue, have taken action on the second and are now looking at managing the asylum regime by speeding up asylum claims to get the backlog down. Those are really important issues, and those who seek to divide us are using them in a way that I would not support. The right to protest is always there, but it should be about the tone of that protest accordingly.
We will bring forward further information on the new body in due course. I hope tonight is an hors d’oeuvre for the noble Baroness, as the main course will follow.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the much tougher Statement from the Home Secretary. Not long ago, politicians making some of those suggestions would have been accused of perhaps being almost racist.
Does the Minister think that the huge pull factors for migrants living in horrible conditions in France are being tackled firmly enough? If we continue what some would describe as featherbedding people who arrive, that is bound to be a pull factor. Does the Minister agree that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights should still be on the table? Does he welcome the report with the foreword by his former boss—and mine at one time—Jack Straw, which makes it clear that whatever your view on leaving the European convention, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement certainly does not prevent that happening?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. When people speak about leaving the ECHR, I always wonder what rights they do not want. Is it the right to a free trial? Is it the right to not have modern slavery? Is it the right to not have exploitation at work? I am never quite sure which one of those rights people do not want. My forefathers and relatives in the past fought hard to ensure we have decent rights at work, including the right to a fair trial and the right to be free from slavery: all those things are embedded. Only a very small number of countries have not signed up to the ECHR. That is not to say—which is why I have said it—that there are not tweaks and interpretations we can make. That is why we will be looking at how we deal with Article 8 in the first place.
I will also, with due respect, challenge the idea that there are pull factors and that people seeking asylum are featherbedded. I do not regard that to be the case. There is no benefit being claimed. No allowance at any meaningful level is given to asylum seekers. We are also trying to end some of the pull factors by tackling very hard illegal working, which undercuts and undermines real people doing real jobs, exploiting people and undermining legitimate businesses.
So I say to the House as a whole that it is a very complex, multilayered issue, but the Government are trying, with a range of measures, to deal with this in a way that does not inflame the situation but looks at long-term, positive solutions to bear down on genuine problems.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
May I tackle the Minister on what he said about the ECHR? It is perfectly true that it incorporates important rights. It is equally perfectly true that those important rights can be incorporated in domestic law, and already are by human rights legislation. The fundamental difference is that, when the European court makes a decision which we as a Parliament differ from, we cannot change its effect in this country. If we were to repatriate the process to the domestic courts, Parliament ultimately would have a decisive say and could overrule the courts. That is what a democratic nation should seek to achieve.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think we will have to have an honest disagreement with the noble Viscount. That is not my view of how this works. My view is that we are all party to a European court and convention. That is not a European Union issue; it is a Council of Europe issue. There are countries not in the EU and in the EU which have abided, since 1950, in the aftermath of a world war that split Europe apart, by a convention that gives basic rights to individuals. I support those basic rights, but that does not mean we cannot examine how they are interpreted. That is where the Government are coming from. Different parties are asking different things, and that will be a debate we will have, but I am trying to show the noble Viscount that there are, in my view, benefits to the ECHR as well as areas of potential challenge.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, expressed concern about the level of first-tier decision-making in the Home Office. I agree with the noble Lord that there is reason for concern about that, but concern about ill-founded refusals of asylum applications—the evidence for which is in the high number of successful appeals. On that subject, I have two specific questions for the Minister, and I will understand if he needs to write to me. First, Home Office checks in 2023-24 showed that only 52% of initial decisions passed the Home Office’s own quality standards. The figures for 2024-25 were supposed to have been published in August but have not been. Can the Minister say when those now overdue figures will be published? Secondly, Home Office data on appeals has not been updated since the start of 2023. There is data on appeals from the tribunals, but Home Office data historically has been more detailed. Are the Government planning to publish that data on appeals?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
In the interests of time, I will write to the noble Baroness on both those issues. I do not have the information to hand, and I would not wish to inadvertently mislead her by giving her an answer that subsequently proved to be erroneous.