Lords Chamber

Tuesday 2nd September 2025

(began 3 months, 1 week ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
11:08
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
attend a close family members wedding. My Lords, the day looks as though it will be devoted to elective home education, and ICOM owing to my defenestration and 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 a home education community a total delight to work with, a collection of extraordinary people, and I find it very easy to understand how the government doesn't find it easy to work with.

And I hope in the course of this bill, we will help lay the foundations for a good, strong relationship. And I would like to thank very much the Minister and her civil servants for all the time and effort that they have taken over the recess to work through the amendments in her section and how we can gain a better understanding of them and share that with the home education community. I look forward to the continuance of that progress through the report.

My approach today will be very concise where I can be. And await what minister has to say about individual amendments and to respond to that. There is so much that has passed between us and civil servants that, to rehearse my amendments as though they hadn't happened would seem to be futile. A large number of the amendments arrived from uncertainty over the government's intentions, so having something clear and unequivocal from the Minister that supports the rights and responsibilities of home educators which celebrates the contribution that they make to the state and they save the state to great deal of money, and to the education of their children.

And requires local authorities to be supportive. The role is absolutely crucial here. It is clear that the role they play is vitally important. There are many instances where people are set out on home educating for the right reason, and looking after the children in those circumstances is hugely important. But if the relationship between local authorities and home educators is to work, it must be based on trust and mutual appreciation. And if you can get back to work as local authorities do, you get strong information flow into local authorities as to what is happening.

You get really good support for the children involved, and it is much easier for a local authority to focus their efforts on the places it is going wrong. This bill, as it is written, has a lot to come in terms of regulation. It gives the local authorities huge powers around some detail of the education that you have provided for your child and the local authority can dip your child back into school. That is the way it is written.

I understand that it is not the way to work in practice, as it has raised considerable concerns in the home education community, and also, talking to local authorities, I have found that their impression is that the government wishes for them to be much stricter and to push children back into school wherever possible. I think these are misapprehensions, and I look forward very much to what the minister has to say on that. Local authorities are thoroughly oversubscribed, financially stressed.

Home education department is usually small. Sometimes people have been pitched into it for the first time and having to learn their way through it. Sometimes people of extreme intolerance. Portsmouth gets intolerance. Portsmouth gets mentioned frequently. But I share a letter from home educators from Bristol Council which shows a deep lack of understanding of how the relationship between local authorities and home educators should work. So, we need to come out of this bill with clear ways that the Department of education can steer local authorities, help them improve their practice.

And offer a course for parents who feel they are badly done by the local authority. And I hope to see a way of celebrating the good practice which goes unnoticed too often. Those local authorities are doing their jobs well. To come to the particular amendments in this group, we are 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 as to what the child is doing for five minutes of the day.

Who are they interacting with? Home education will be a very loose, very varied way of educating a child through a parental direction in their following with no clear predetermined path to record that in the way in which this bill seems to ask for which would require a daily report sent by the parent to the local authority. This can't be something that we are set up to do. We need something that will be sensible and practical to try and understand what that is.

And there is certainly an established practice in some local authorities of an annual report which can vary between six and 60 pages. That allows a parent to present a clear and consistent picture of the education that the child has been receiving to put everything in context. I would have thought, and the noble Lord Lord Crisp has been pushing on this as well, that that would be the very best basis for the relationship of reporting from a parent to a local Where everything is consistent, helps the parents look through.

The detailed powers in this bill, if it was to be as it is set out, in the face of this bill, would be hugely disruptive for local authorities and for parents. And I think we also for parents. And I think we also have to look at the way in which the failure to provide detailed information results and consequences. There is far too much scope in there for things to get really difficult and distracting.

The amendment to hundred and 33 from a noble friend Lord Wei -- 233 proposes that qualified teachers be exempt from registration, and there are similar suggestions in others amendments. I think this reflects the difficulty that we sometimes see where the local authorities start, performing the home education roles, don't have sufficient background, sufficient confidence, sufficient support that they will trust their own judgement. If you have got two qualified teachers bringing up their child, or somebody who is clearly having a good history of successfully educating children, it ought to be easy for the local authority personnel to place trust in that, to say, no, we don't have to, this is clearly a good place, I don't need to see the children, I understand what the education being provided here, it is clearly quality.

I need to turn my attention in other directions. That system works, in many local authorities, and others it is completed broken down. Which the Bristol I think illustrates. We need ways in which that sort of relationship can be encouraged and work breaks down, we can get some restoration, some move back towards the sector. Amendment 318 from a noble friend looks at the difficulty where it concerns, or you are concerned with people who are distant from maintaining schools, around 321 is looking again at people who are clearly succeeding.

Amendment 322 looks at how you deal with nomadic families. All these are details on which I would hope to hear, either from the Minister or later from her officials. We need to understand how these things work. But if there is the basic arrangement there of quality local authorities supported by clear direction from the government, a lot of these difficulties are clearly insuperable without getting too fast insuperable without getting too fast

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- they are clearly surmountable. Amendment proposed, page 15, line 18, insert the words as printed in the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it's the first time I'm speaking in Committee, I declare
11:20
11:21
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm delighted to have the chance to speak after the noble Lord Lord Lucas and his very eloquent and Lucas and his very eloquent and moving statement to the House about how he sees this and echoing, those really important points, this is about relationships in the end. And it's about children and children's needs and their relationships. It is about, there's a real danger with this bill as he has said that this will be hugely disruptive for local authorities and parents and in many ways, could be a real recipe for trouble to come, if we get this wrong.

But I think there are ways in which we can get this right and get which we can get this right and get which we can get this right and get . The lock to get right. I'm going to come back to some of those points. The civil point I wanted to make was in relation to 238 in the name of noble Lord Lucas which was about the requirement to know which parents are education, how and for how long. We are going to come back to went in various ways later on.

There are two really key points here, one is about safeguarding where there is an issue with at least one of the parents which noble Lord Lord Storey has got amendment. And also what about division of time between parents educating which the noble Lady Lady Barran has got an amendment on. It seems that this whole section needs to be rethought. What do we really need to? We need to know which parents are taking responsible see, we need to know where they are, how they can be contacted.

But the rest of it is superfluous. I will just simply make those points in response to the amendment to hundred and 38.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arrives to support Amendment 234, to which I put my name, but also more generally to endorse the views that my noble friend Lord Lucas and that my noble friend Lord Lucas and that my noble friend Lord Lucas and Lord Crisp have just set out. I have begun to engage with home education as a concept and as a community and
11:23
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-
as a concept and as a community and it's 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 they have a lot of expertise into which governments should be trying to tap into and learn from rather than regiment and regulate. If it should turn out the worst happens and indeed my noble friend Lord Lucas is forced to step back from advocating from the sector, I'm sure and I and other laws will be willing to pick this up and continued the discussion.

I thank the Minister and the team for all the communication that there has been over the summer as they have been very comprehensive communications and emails, it has been very helpful and will be very useful today. I want to make one brief point today which is relevant to amendment 234 but also to all those in this group which is the point about trust, that trust is the way home education works. Trust and mutual understanding. And 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, very detailed, prospective, because all sorts of practical difficulties.

And based on a misunderstanding in some ways about how much of home education actually works. It's true that some local authorities are not as positively motivated as others. It's certainly true that all in this area are extremely overworked and it's difficult to see what is gained by generating vast amounts of paper and reporting which go to a draw and are not much looked at. To conclude, if it's not too late, I do think that a rethink in this area is helpful, if they can be pulling back some of the descriptive list, better understanding from government and locally about this area.

And more support for local authorities, clear direction from government to get the approach right. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord the Minister has to say later on today. This
11:26
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Well, my Lords, I look back at bedtime ago when I think it was ages ago I had a very simple private spill which said that home educators should register. That was it. And you would think I had ignited a bonfire of education because the online abuse, the letters that poured in, was just unbelievable. And perhaps stupidly, with Lord Addington, decided to organise a roundtable to discuss home education with home educators, and teacher associations and anyone else in interested and that was a real loving her.

-- A real learning curve. Since then I have got to know many home educators. Once you book on home education. But it feels like there is finger jabbing but we became quite good friends and I understood home education quite well. And since that time, we have all gone on a journey, and it's a very important journey. I think we have to ask ourselves, why do we want to do this? And I think we want to do this for one reason only.

And that is our young people and our children. Actually, if every home educated child went to school, the school system would not be able to cope. And that makes me also think, the points that Lord Lucas has made, is quite correct. It's all very well us agreeing legislation but we have always got to have at the back of our minds, will it work? And for me, the important thing is not only knowing where our children are, not only knowing that our children are getting education, but also knowing that there is a correct relationship between the local authority and the home educator.

And there are some fantastic examples of work local authorities work really closely, really successfully, with home educators, to the benefit of both. There are some learning curves from other local authorities don't have that good relationship with that relationship and think that waving the cane and waving the statute is more important than actually trying to do what is in the best interests of the child. And while there are thousands of wonderful home educators, I have to tell you that there are also children who are not being home educated, who are just languishing at home for all sorts of reasons.

I have to tell you because I have said before, there are children who are being home educated who are in a religious setting where it is not about a wide education, it is about understanding their particular religious texts. And that is not in my mind beneficial for the child as a whole. So glad we have child as a whole. So glad we have always got the stage where we think that we should actually register children who are home educated, not least as we know where they are and hopefully we can make sure that they are safeguarded.

I'm not sure that having an education portfolio is the same as registering. I'm not sure that being a grand trust master entitles you to say, I don't need to register -- being a grand chess master. And I'm not sure that even teachers with formal education qualifications don't have to register. That just seems bizarre to me. 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 at report stage, we are not just mindful of home educators, but now as a local councillor, mindful of the capacity issues for local education authorities and we want to make sure that they are able to cope with the legislation and make sure it works not just for the family, not just for the child but for the local for the child but for the local
11:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
All of the amendments in this group, in the name of Lord Wei, ably presented by Lord Lucas seek to find exemptions or exceptions to the basic principle that there should be a register of children not in school. And quite rightly, my noble friend stressed the importance of the relationship between the local authority and home educating parents. And other noble Lords have pointed out, the government does need to take great care in this legislation, that it doesn't inadvertently damage that relationship and that potential trust by the requirements set out in the bill, but having said that, I cannot support these amendments and their aim to find exemptions.

Firstly, at its simplest, the point of the register is to ensure that a local authority knows which children are not in school. 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 the support, and again, excluding these children would prevent that, and finally, these amendments make an assumption that in these conditions, it may be preferable to educate the child at home, but even if that is the case, in the majority if not the vast majority of cases, I would argue that it still remains reasonable and proportionate to record that that child is not in school.

With regards to amendments to hundred and 34 and 238, I think that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised some important points 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 he said in his opening remarks, rather than just recorded, and the governments proposals go a lot further than the legislation we brought forward in 2022, and I share my noble friend 's doubts as to whether it is necessary.

Going back to the point about the local authority and parents, I think a good test for this legislation and one that I tried to use when we debated the 2022 bill is the legislation needs to feel fair to parents, and I think there is a risk with the amount of information with the information that has been requested, that it should feel unfair and damage that relationship with the local relationship with the local authorities. We will be able to reassure the house that is not the case.

Before I begin, I would just like to thank the noble Lords Lord
11:35
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Wei, Lord Lucas, Lord Crisp, Lord Hacking, and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for taking time over summer to meet with taking time over summer to meet with my officials. Having the opportunity to discuss in detail with noble Lords how the children not in school Lords how the children not in school provisions are intended to work in practice was extremely beneficial and instructive. And I'm giving careful consideration to some of the finer details of the provisions with finer details of the provisions with which noble Lords have indicated they are not wholly satisfied, and I have to say to the noble Lord Lord have to say to the noble Lord Lord Lucas, we have worked well and closely with home educators who are closely with home educators who are rightly challenging on the issues rightly challenging on the issues that noble Lords have raised in the debate here, and just to be debate here, and just to be completely clear, we know that the home education community is diverse and varied.

It can take place in all and varied. It can take place in all works of life, in cities, the countryside, delivered by those with professional teaching experience and professional teaching experience and those without. It is often delivering an excellent education to delivering an excellent education to children. But it is important that the registers work as intended. They shouldn't encroach on the ability to home educate, and 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 school, but they must also make it possible for local authorities to possible for local authorities to identify all children not in school.

That is why the bill also places a new duty to provide information when requested by parents. This should give us a clearer picture on how give us a clearer picture on how children are educated. This information will support the department to identify best practice and to consider how this can potentially be replicated across authorities to build strong and testing relationships with parents, and I do recognise the point made by several noble Lords already today, that this is important, that we are sure that these relationships are maintained and built on the basis of trust, and a sense of what is being asked for by the government is reasonable.

And we will, as the noble Lord says, 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 and to make sure that relationship is based on a recognition of best interest of children and the right to parents to educate their children at home as long as they are providing suitable education. The department has education. The department has stepped in.

Speaking on the amendments, they do seek to make sure that children are registered on children not on school registers, and then to reduce the mandatory information 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, and I will respond first or parents, and I will respond 1st to all the amendments dealing with which children on registers. As we have heard from the noble Lady baroness, a key objective of the registers is to aid authorities in their existing duty to identify all children in their areas who are not registered in school and who are not registered in school and who are not While I don't agree with the amendments, I am afraid that the amendments, I am afraid that the logic doesn't track, even in terms of looking at qualifications for registration, as per amendments to 33 demonstrating education.

The local authority would need to know of the children and record details of their parents. Which might actually be more cumbersome than the requirements that this is asking for. Amendments 318 and 32 to seek to exempt children from rural areas unless safeguarding reforms are present. As well as children from the magic families. This would require local authority to have an awareness 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 circumstances.

In 2316 exemption for inclusion through an annual portfolio and amendment to 326 exemption if the parent has educate a child that has gone on to university. Just because a parent has previous demonstrating suitable education or has previously home educate a child who progressed to further or higher or a parent hold certain qualifications, it doesn't necessarily follow that that child will receive a suitable education indefinitely or at all, and furthermore, exempting children on the basis of achieving status of a chess grandmaster to make sure the child is in suitable education or assay.

I turn now to the amendments in this group and concerning the mandatory information requested from parents to be held on authority registers. Amendments to 34 and 238. In later groups, we will 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. And just to be absolutely clear, the only information required to be held on registers is information given to parents and obtainable by local authorities, and considered necessary for suitability of education and safety of the child.

Basic information such as the child's name, date of birth, address, and high-level details of education provided by the parent and others, and we will go into this in more detail, but just to be absolutely clear in relation to the point made by the noble Lord Lucas, courses which require daily weekly or even monthly reports from parents. That is absolutely not what the intention is here. We don't believe that this very basic information is overly burdensome for parents to provide or for local authorities to request and maintain.

Turning to amendment 234 tabled by Lord Lucas, this amendment 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 isn't 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, the local authority may be unaware the child is in the area.

We need to be certain the local authorities are aware of all children not in school to find children who need support. This requirement is proportionate, and it does bring the process in England and to the same level as the majority of other countries. In some countries, they are much more supportive of home education than many other countries. On this, I just hope you will permit me a brief digression to clarify a point of confusion that I know has been raised and concerned parents regarding consequences of 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 men, at their discretion, issue a notice requiring the parent to satisfy the local authority that the 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 they cannot prove that the child is being suitably educated, it is only then that they will be found guilty of an offence and could be subject to a fine imposed at the magistrates courts discretion. It is important to reiterate that the school attendance order process that would be used here is an existing process and that fines for breaching an order are completely avoidable through compliance. With this in mind, the number of families ultimately subject to a fine for breach of an order will be low compared to the overall numbers of orders issued.

Turning to amendment 238, also tabled by Lord Lucas, this amendment seeks to remove the requirement to retain information about the education child is Each parent has an equal Education for their child. To help determine if this is the case, it is important local authority can establish how much education is received from each parent alongside that being received from other people or organisations. We hardly recognise some parents will use educational styles that are not like school like methods and we will consider this when setting out in regulations how time must be recorded on registers.

Regardless of the style of education if children are not receiving a suitable education local authorities must intervene. If fundamental information such as whether the child is receiving education from the parent and how much is unavailable then the local authority might not have enough information to know whether they should take action. I hope I have provided, and we will go on to some of the other details later on in the groups, I hope I have provided explanations here for the reasons why the register should exist and why we should not allow the exemptions identified here and for those reasons I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw the amendments.
11:47
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the Minister for that reply. In particular for the word she said on the relationship with local authorities. I will study that in Hansard and I will study that in Hansard and come back to if I have any problem but my first impression was that it was hugely positive and very helpful and thank you 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's such an important part of making sure that local authorities who are not in the best place progress to better one. I understand the objection to my noble friend's don't register amendments. I was wondering how he would have argued for Mozart. I think Mozart might have appreciated intervention of the local authority in his education. I would like to pick the government off again on how nomadic families are to work with this legislation.

Which local authority to the register with? How does it work? Just so it's clear, I know it's an item of detail, and we will see the amendment on knowing how that works for nomadic families and families who are 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 every three months, coming back to the position Lord Crisp has made about can we focus on an annual report.

I would love to see... The bill doesn't say that. The government is relying on its ability in guidance to take what's in the bill which is a very detailed every minute requirement and say, if you give us a report once a year that will be fine. I did ask very early on, I sent a message in through the Department to the government's legal draughtsman to say what other limits on this? How far can guidance actually go against what is there in the bill.

Does the government actually have the power to say in guidance that an annual report will be enough. I would really appreciate an answer on that and I would like to understand where where that applies. And similarly that applies to things like where parents are together and the requirement to say, who is providing how much of the education, that again obviously can be dealt with in regulation but is it actually within the government power to put that in guidance? When it comes to the consequences of failure, I'm delighted, and I did think it was the case that there was no fines involved but the process is moving towards a school attendance order.

In this area of the process is the punishment it is being tipped into, this process and the stress and the worry and the effort required in fighting through that process. And therefore you come down to again the importance of a strong and positive relationship and a well setup local authority and how important that is to this bill working. For now I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment. -- Is a gorgeous pressure the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn.

Amendments to hundred 32 and 233, not moved. Amendment 233, A, not not moved. Amendment 233, A, not A bigger one, amendment 234. Amendment already debated. Now This group concerns data protection and sharing. The obviously dealing here with some very personal data that people want to be sure it is handled right, that it is not shared with the wrong people, particularly if doesn't you have got families who are in the process of breaking up where abuse is concerned it doesn't get the wrong people.

I think and large the amendment that I'm responsible for and this group are suffix country and it would be most helpful for me to listen to the Minister first and respond to where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the government finds itself. Amendment proposed, closer to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, closer to one, page 54, line 38, insert the words as printed in the marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I just want to do so few words on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to do so few words on amendment 205 four, A and the name of noble Lord story. To spell out but I suspect noble Lords understand
11:54
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
but I suspect noble Lords understand fully is that there are issues here in certain cases where perhaps one parent has been abusive of a child or their partner, their spouse, that it is vitally important that addresses are not made available to that parent. And there needs to be, I know in discussions, perhaps I can go back to the three steps, and prefaced his remarks by firstly saying how much I appreciate the warm remarks that the noble Lady the Minister has made in her opening remarks about home education and setting a much better tone than was intended to come through in this debate.

And also something else I omitted to say which was my thanks to her and her officials for that excellent meeting lasting much of the day, in which frankly they were very open, very willing to discuss things, very helpful. I don't know how much movement we got out of it but we will see during the course of today, but I do think it was very helpful to have that and to understand that clearly. I also wanted to note that as all noble Lords have said, there is such an issue of balance here, the balance between supporting the good people who are providing home education because it's better for their children, and the recent it was good education, and the missing children, the children who are abused or neglected or missed out, the noble Lord Lord Storey made an important intervention on.

It's that balance we need to get right. I do think on amendment 254, A, there needs to be something in the face of the bill, in the discussion with officials we discussed this point, the point was made this can be picked up in regulation but I think there needs to be something on the face of this bill in order to help the various parents who I know are specifically worried about this point about safeguarding, that actually it would be useful, and this amendment is probably as simple as it comes in terms of pointing out that where there is a concern, abuse, some order standing against one parent's name that this particular section should be handled by an authority in the local -- in an appropriate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fashion. I rise to speak to amendment 206

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 206 to 7 in my name and others. My thanks for their support. This amendment mandates local authorities not to keep the information they
11:56
11:57
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Are rise to speak to my amendment to 54 and thank Lord Crisp for his comments. I want to predicate my comments by saying, as a society we can be proud of the fact that we have carefully and proportionately brought in over the years safeguarding procedures which really make a difference to the lives of children, and we know-large that our children are safe. There are occasions where we find that there is a gap in the regulations, a gap in the provision, and again, we come together to try and sort that out.

In a sense, safeguarding information can be shared with parents, and this amendment comes from conversations from a number of organisations who have given their thoughts about how in some cases this can be harmful for the child. If there is a safeguarding concern, details can be shared with both parents about if that puts a risk of further harm to the child, I ask the question, is that appropriate? In a sense, this is a probing amendment, and I'm really interested in terms of this particular amendment what the Minister has to say and that will impact my thoughts when we come to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report stage. My Lords, I will speak very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group which in common with some of the earlier groups, seeks to probe the groups, seeks to probe the government lie position in relation to some important albeit quite a to some important albeit quite a call issues. And those include the
11:59
12:01
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
So, the amendments in group 2 around the sharing and protection of information on the registers, and I can completely understand the concerns processing of data. And I hope to be able to provide some of the reassurances that are seeking in my response. But we must be clear that we mustn't make them a barrier to legitimate information sharing, recording and sharing information can be life-saving, and as with all ready discussed, children will support local authorities to keep accurate records of eligible children, identifying those that require support and facilitating better coordination between support services as well as enabling them to fulfil the requirement to understand where children are receiving information outside school.

Turning to amendment 235 which seeks to ensure that local authorities are not required to collect information on the registers that would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, our published memorandum outlines the position on this, and we are confident that the provisions in this bill are compatible. Turning to As with amendment 238, which I spoke to in the previous group, these amendment seeks to place exemptions on the requirement for registers to contain certain information on the child's parents, and I've outlined why that information is vital, but I do appreciate that noble Lords have tabled these amendments based on concerns that some parents are estranged from their parents for some reason such as Domestic Abuse Act, recognising that concern, we have engaged with organisations that have engaged with organisations that have supported the proposals, and we will continue to do so as part of our implementation.

Organisations like Women's Aid have long called for the introduction of children out of school registers. It is one of the recommendations they have made as part of their 19 child report published in June this year. If a parent could pose a risk to the child, it is even more crucial that they have this. Holding this information whether they are providing information to the child and time spent on such education should help to identify the frequency the child has with the parent and this can feed into a local authorities assessment as to 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, it is difficult for authorities to intervene, but I do understand the concerns of parents, and I want to respond to that. To be clear, parents who fled domestic should be reassured that they will not be required to seek out the details of the other parent. To ensure that the register will not reveal the whereabouts of a parent who escaped abuse. Data will help to ensure that all those on the register are safe stop specifically in cases where known abuser has made a subject access request regarding the child, the local authority can make determinations considering the fact of the case including safeguarding concerns, and I and my colleagues are clear in ensuring all appropriate safeguards can be in place.

We will continue to work with expertise in domestic to ensure that all necessary protections into the guidance that we will produce. Linked to this but on a slightly different issue, a concern of local registers being published. Let me be clear that local authorities will not be able to publish from there registers the name or an address of eligible children or their parent or any information which could lead to their identities being deduced. The their identities being deduced. The bill contains a provision preventing this, explicitly preventing it.

However, it is important that local authorities can publish information relating to her medication cohorts. Some will be asking for further information along these lines. Information in terms of reasons for her medication and demographics. They will aid transparency into how each local authority is undertaking their duties. We will ensure that regulations made to this, setting out how register details will be published will be subject to consultation. Turning to amendment 267 tabled in the name of my friend Lady Whitaker and Lord Wei which require the destruction of all data in relation to a child held on a child about 1018 or enrolling in school, I hope I can ensure noble Lords the data protection laws are clear that data must not be kept longer than necessary and must only be retained when there is a lawful basis.

Entries on the register will therefore be deleted prior to the child turning 18 as a child is only eligible to be included on the register if they are of compulsory school age. As my noble friend alluded to, some information may need to be retained on other . For example, looked after child remains with the local authority until they are 25, and it is crucial to hold some historical information as part of education and safeguarding enquiries. The current laws already allow for this.

Turning to amendment 275, these amendments seek to make sure parents are notified of any data breaches that occur as part of measures. They claim compensation and the local authorities are liable for Affected individuals without undue dilemma where there is high risk that they are adversely affected by the breach. And as a result, do have a right to claim compensation from the local authority who may also face fines or regulatory action. Turning to amendment 305 tabled by Turning to amendment 305 tabled by Lord Lucas, these amendments seek to restrict or remove the powers relating to the use of sharing of data on the registers for top as I've suggested earlier, local authorities and the Department do need to collate and share register information often at speed to the safeguarding or welfare of the Section 436 Section 436 shared Section 436 shared different circumstances, for example, local authorities may share information with those persons and organisations listed in section 11 one of the If If there If there is If there is information If there is information on If there is information on registers that can aid these organisations in protecting or promoting the welfare of a child, then I'm sure noble Lords will agree that it is important that it is shared.

In relation to amendment 328, I want to reassure noble Lords that immigration authorities do not feature in any of these categories. Turning to men and 297, which 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 attending the provision above the prescribed threshold, we will come on later to talk in more detail about the provided duty, but this amendment removes the provided duty which we argue is crucial in supporting local authorities to identify children who should be on registers but are not, and to crosscheck records for children already on registers.

There is no way for local authorities to achieve this without asking for basic identifying information. Turning to amendment 504, tabled by Lord Lucas, which 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 conducts extensive internal and external assurance processes to ensure systems are safe and secure before launch. To support local authorities in meeting the Data Protection Act legation under the measures to provide best practice for keeping information secure.

And finally, turning to the noble Baroness amendments which opposes the amendment that clause 43 stay part of this bill, because 33 in responding to this group ensures that the processing of personal information is required or enabled by this bill does not contribute the Data Protection Act 2018. It promotes the highest standards of data security and transparency. And the noble Lords will be able to agree that the clause stay as part of the bill and to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I'm grateful to the Minister for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the Minister for that thoughtful response. I will pick up her thing that I disagree pick up her thing that I disagree with which I didn't notice. I will just say something on amendment 504. The amendment has created this cybersecurity centre because the risks and techniques and the availability are moving so fast, particularly with AI, so the best particularly with AI, so the best possible expertise are available to all government departments, and time and again, they are not using it.

There is a recent case I have been There is a recent case I have been dealing with where we got a chunk of dealing with where we got a chunk of their code, the vital core code their code, the vital core code developed in Romania. It is not secure to do that. You don't know what it is doing or who it is doing what it is doing or who it is doing it for. And the way in which devices it for.

And the way in which devices were not up to scratch either. The resources there as part of government. It should be used by departments who can't keep up with the latest in threats when it comes to security. It really is the best that can be done. Otherwise, a big move to move the amendment.
12:15
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
The amendment is now withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The grouping of these amendments has become a bit confusing. My has become a bit confusing. My amendments to, three 5 AM to 37 are amendments to, three 5 AM to 37 are directed to the sexually abused children, but so are amendments to children, but so are amendments to 36 a of the noble Lord Lucas, and so 36 a of the noble Lord Lucas, and so is amendment to 5 for a from Lord is amendment to 5 for a from Lord Storey.

But I will be addressing now Storey. But I will be addressing now for this section the problem of protecting sexually abused children at this stage in this group, and I at this stage in this group, and I didn't intervene earlier because I thought it was sensible if I could collect them altogether or collect my words altogether to deal with the my words altogether to deal with the I would like to refer to my noble I would like to refer to my noble friend the Minister when she got to the Dispatch Box at the beginning of the Dispatch Box at the beginning of this stage of the committee, and mentioning in-kind terms my name and mentioning in-kind terms my name and the names of Lord Crisp, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords who had been participating in this bill.

And she also referred to the meetings that have taken place at the Department of education with her officials, and I might add with her colleague, the Minister Stephen Morgan and I wish to express extreme thanks to my noble friend and the officials fought the helpfulness of it and on this bill, the government is listening. This is not been exactly a feature of recent bills, either from the Conservative benches or from my benchers but on this bill the government is listening and we are very grateful.

My Lords, my attention to this problem was drawn by a mother who had a serious problem over her husband abusing her problem over her husband abusing her son. That kind lady, she has been very objective and very forceful in presenting her case. She did speak to the noble Lord Lord Frost, I'm sorry he's not in the chamber. She came to speak at the noble Lord Chris. I don't know if she came to speak to Lord Lucas but certainly he has been in contact with her.

And it's therefore been very helpful to have the evidence that she was providing. I will not identify her, although I should also mention the Minister himself, Stephen Morgan, Minister himself, Stephen Morgan, met her as well, and the officials, my noble friends officials have also met her and exchanged emails with her. There has been a lot of information that has been exchanged which I think a spoon very helpful. which I think a spoon very helpful. In brief, that her son was abused, sexually abused, by her husband.

I think at the start of the age of four and then it went on for several years. And when the mother found out, she was absolutely horrified and wanted, as all mothers, who are facing the same situation, wanted the maximum of protection. And that is what these amendments are trying to do. My submissions on this issue is not based just on one case. I'm afraid there are a number of cases of sexual abuse on children which were either undetected or unreported, or both.

This brings me back to many years ago when I was a barrister appearing at the Lincoln Assizes and I was involved in the case of incest. And the prosecution case against the accused was that he was committing incest on the complainant but the complainant was both his daughter and his granddaughter. And that illustrates how horrific that this problem of sexual abuse can be. Going to these amendments, the protection that is really being sought is that the misbehaving husband should not have any access to any information, particularly as my noble friend identified, tickly as to the whereabouts and address of the abused child.

That he should be entirely separated from that child. I can do it in a number of ways, in Lord Lucas's way, it Lord Crisp 's way, I must apologise to Lord Crisp, 237 are now being moved over to 3 -- 235, A, somehow as his name was lost from the marshalled list, so I do apologise but I do hope he has forgiven me, Lord Crisp is a very forgiving P. I take the position, the point I really wanted to establish, but he is supportive of establish, but he is supportive of this amendment.

I'm not quite getting a nod but I will work on the basis because he's a very sensible amendment. Of course the Minister is quite right to use that data protection to, but she said there is a very strict rule in subclause five of clause 436, C, which puts a strong prohibition on the publication of any information in the register and also being made accessible to the public. I keep calling her my Leonard friend. She is very learned. But I should stick to the correct parliamentary description of my noble friend.

Anyway, to go back to subclause five, as provide a strong prohibition but of course that means that the officials would access to the register have to be trusted to follow subsection 5. And the who might just referred who has been so helpful in our deliberations on this issue, recalls a situation when a husband who had been convicted of wrongful sexual abuse office child, or two children actually in that case, two girls, had been sent to prison.

He then brings up to collect information from the register which is given. And so the only way that we in this House can properly protect the abuse child being traced by the abusing father is by making sure that the information is not in the register, and did it -- if it is not in the register it cannot be released. I suggest that is the best approach. I do end by thanking noble friend, indeed for the way she has been inducting this entire bill by her helpfulness and her willing to listen and above all, her willingness to work with this House.

And that is a matter of great congratulations and great thanks. I soon the noble Lord would like to move his amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Before putting the amendment I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before putting the amendment I must apologise to the committee, I should have advised the committee, as the noble Lord Lord Hacking has as the noble Lord Lord Hacking has alluded to, that amendment to hundred and 37 is in an incorrect place in the marshalled list, hence place in the marshalled list, hence my calling to 35, A. Moment post, my calling to 35, A. Moment post, clause 31, leave outlines 40 to 44 and insert the words as printed in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled list. This is the point at which I want to make one of the two main
12:24
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
interventions, but I propose to make today. And that is on my amendment to hundred 54, B. For a come to that, can I comment on two other amendments. The first one is that I added my name to Baroness Barran's amendment to hundred 39 which leaves out the bit about having the spirit of hours between which parents are providing how many hours per week which seems to be completely redundant information. I do understand the point that the register should include reference to the fact that parents are providing information, it is not all being done through education but it seems the split is unconvincing.

When the noble Lord the Minister responded to this point in an earlier group, she said something about wanting to know the number of hours of education that were taking place during the week. I think I may have misinterpreted it but I think that was what was said. It prompts me to ask the question of the noble lady, does she have a number of hours per week that is expected to be covered? I would be interested to know if there is some number that the Department has in mind.

The second one, amendment, which again I admire name to, -- had my name too, is 260 which is about the local authorities being able to ask for any other relevant information, again, I think this is too much of a Catterall. I think there's enough information provided -- to much of a catch all. I would be keen to hear the noble Lady bonus 's arguments on this, and that the noble Lady the Minister will accept. My main intervention is on 254, B, the first point which the parents are asked to provide a lot of information about who is providing the information.

My amendment picks up the point that this is a very possible providers, as it's written in could include the occasional organised event. It could include regular visits to the guides which is an educational charity a understand, it could include rugby clubs, and other things like that, anything that has an educational component as it is written. And may I just say in parenthesis, that I have already received one reference from one provider of home education, a Wildlife Trusts in the Midlands which has already written to the people which provides home education for saying that it will no longer, if we can put this on hold until it is clear what the impact of the billers.

Already this Wildlife Trusts, I don't know what level of education it provides but it has stopped providing education to home educating children because of its fears of what this bill might mean for it in future in terms of the amount of information it has to provide. However my intervention here is about the information that the parent needs to provide, or the parents need to provide. My amendment is written, our very useful discussions with officials, they made it clear that they were put in regulations that implied there was a certain amount of time beyond which one-off events didn't count, actually events that happened once a week but were only three hours long or whatever wouldn't be taken into account, things that were primarily social and recreational.

I think we need to have some parameters in the face of the bill which is why my requirements says that the requirement to provide the information set out in subsection 1, E, any applies to providers providing regular education sessions, amounting to 10 hours or more a week which are not primarily social or recreational in nature and importantly what we have discussed, and where the information is not already been provided to the authority in other formats, such as an annual report.

Let me pick up the point about duplication. I'm asking as anyone to weed out fake or failing home education parents or arrangements. However, I don't think this register is the way to do it. Form filling will not cut the diversity of the child's needs and educational methods. It is the match between the two of those that did so vital. Critically as we know that more of those more than half of those home education have special of different sorts.

This is not A1 size get this bill seems to be treating it as if it is. No I believe will inspection of a child's work and timetable without the wider context of a parents own assessment of the child needs an effective method in doing so. Mrs out the most important evidence of all, the reality of that particular child and the circumstances. That is why I think the attempt to use the register to try and make any assessment of the quality of education provided is fundamentally flawed.

And there is an existing alternative. I understand that existing case law is that an authority is entitled to ask for annual report of meeting. And parents have the right to determine the content of that report or meeting. That is as I understand it, I did say this in the session before the recess, nobody has conducted me so I'm assuming this is the case. This seems to be entirely sensible and since then I have seen several annual reports which describe amongst many things the reason the child is being homeschooled, home educated, maybe social needs, maybe bullying, maybe having been excluded from school, maybe parental preference.

It describes the needs of the child, the educational approach, what is planned and what has been the achieve. This seems to be more effective in assessing the quality of the education than quality of the education than filling in a form. It helps to build a relationship between the home education office and parents, through which if appropriate they can offer guidance and some port, or indeed if appropriate, encourage This need not be a confrontational exercise and it isn't at the moment.

We need to have as little detail as necessary for safeguarding purposes, and use the annual process for the processes, together with regular meetings. The officer and home educational groups. I'm not suggesting individual parents. Which will help set mutual expectations in an area about what is reasonable. At the moment, it seems that the quality of home education has been poorly assessed through a system primarily designed for safeguarding, and it is almost as an add-on to his original bill eight years ago but all this detail is in there.

We have to take advantage of the quality of education they represent. Some are not good and were taken out of school primarily. Home education is expanding, and I expect it will continue to do so as parents vote with their feet, taking on enormous responsibilities for the sake of their children and there has been crass comment on this as the Lord's will know. And I think policy needs developing equally treat fully. Many parents want their children for particular needs, and many have plans to bring their child back into school at the right time.

The first is to review the process that I subscribed, as an alternative some of the requirements in the bill. There is also one for head teachers to be more responsible. There is constant pressures of noise and interaction which affect people so strongly, and the Lord has said that we have to strengthen the home offices and encourage support from the groups and the relationships. Parents need only provide for things, regular education sessions, more than 10 hours a week, which are not primarily recreational nature, and where information has not already been provided to the
12:35
Lord Young of Cookham Portrait Lord Young of Cookham (Conservative)
-
-
The Minister will response afterwards. The statutory local registers of children not in school this assay whether young carers needs assessment has been carried out. It is a revised version of amendment to 51 in my name. Amending section 2, it makes it easier for local authorities to comply section 1 is referring to information which local authorities have or might reasonably obtain. I would like to reasonably obtain. I would like to thank officials for the discussions had which have led to this new had which have led to this new had which have led to this new The MM it is related to a nine The MM it is related to a nine if they are notified by a pupil who is being withdrawn from a pupil.

Amendment 2578 compliments that by including such information on the register. I won't repeat the arguments for improving the protection but mention very briefly the case of Selma who is caring for her mother who has physical and mental health issues and a father who has physical health issues. It is subject to bullying. The parents dated a homeschooling her whilst working to get her back into a specialist provision. After some are returned that specialist provision, she admitted that no homeschooling taken place and she had been carrying around the clock.

She had missed one half years of school before she was given permanent place in that provision. So again, repeating what I have said before, I'm not saying that a carer should never be home educated but we do need safeguarding so that children don't slip off the radar related to both the previous amendment and this one of the delays in carrying out a young carers assistant. I raised this in July. She told me that the Care Quality Commission is currently assessing how well local authorities perform their relevant duties and the 2014 care act and every local authority would have an assessment in March.

She also strongly suggests we lead up to the strong doors initiative, but following the CQC report, I hope we can take action against authorities who are underperforming. The addition of carers to the census and the impact which Karen can have an educational opportunities. We now know that opportunities. We now know that carers in our schools have over a month of our education each year, so including young carers on this register will help ensure local authorities can comply with their duties at the 1989 children act.

Those in need in support. People will be able to be better able to work with families and young carer services to ensure the caring responsibilities to make sure nobody is missing out. And to put it into perspective, there are 50,000 children caring for an alarming 50 hours each week, including over 3000 children aged between five and nine. A further 21,000 children are caring for 49 hours a week. This has a huge impact on health but also on future health chances, with carers taking on significant caring responsibilities, 87% less likely than their peers without caring responsibilities and 56% less lightly to be in employment.

It takes too long to get the support takes too long to get the support they need. We have to make sure the children the front of our thinking when talking about children who are not in school. The clause would mean carer status would only be included on the register if the local authority knows the child is a young carer or could reasonably obtain such information. But given that the majority of young carers are not identified, I would make sure that local authorities are identifying young carers outside of education.

So the simple amendment is a small step in making sure that all carers are able to get the same educational opportunities as their peers, whether they are educated in school or elsewhere.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In support of the amendment, I
12:40
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

In support of the amendment, I did add my name to the original amendment. I was a bit slow off the mark in adding my name to his mark in adding my name to his revised amendment that Lord Young has just spoken to, but I do strongly support it. We have 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 and I'm concerned that they don't get the necessary breaks from caring responsibilities.

We all know how important respite care is, but particularly for young carers. I'm concerned about young carers finding themselves ever-increasing levels of caring responsibilities. Some of the case studies are been looking at, they may be at the more extreme end of the spectrum, they were talking about young carers who were looking after both mum and dad who had multiple needs, physical and mental health needs, as well as two or three younger siblings. How on earth they can take on that caring responsibility and still be ensuring that they are educating themselves, I really don't know.

I was very struck by the statistic that was said about 50,000 children caring for 50 hours or more a week, and that is not compatible with a child. That is not we would want for their own life chances. I'm also concerned they will be missing out on support that could be provided because they are not in school. Some schools are actually very good at running things like mental-health support for young carers, additional support and all of that, and I think it is absently critical that young carers have this kind of support if they need it and if they are actually being educated at home.

The excessive levels of care that these young people are being asked to take on, the impact of their feeling of information, and this amendment is absolutely this amendment is absolutely essential to protect, and the word used was safeguard, and I think we need very strong safeguards if we are to be satisfied that young carers will also be educated. carers will also be educated. carers will also be educated.
12:44
12:45
Baroness Morris of Yardley Portrait Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
whom were being referred and both sets of needs need to be met, and therein is the difficulty of getting the legislation right, but I took the point about children with caring responsibilities and hope we can take this opportunity to improve that. It is something I have been that. It is something I have been I have a great deal of sympathy and hope it can be resolved. I'm asking the Minister to offer some reassurance or explanation, when she once up the debate.

First of all, I'm not quite sure whether the information is in the forward- looking education plans of a home educated child or whether it is retrospective, so what have you done this year with the child. I think the timing of the information is needed. The second point is, I went to the Royal institution one day and there was a group of children being educated there who were home educated but had come together for that experience because the signs that experience because the signs that education other than that.

I suspect they do that only a few times a year. If I take that as an example, I'm not sure whether that needs to be recorded, whether Royal institution is going to have to provide its postcode, fill in a form, get the information. So some sort of clarification around that would be important. I think the main point, and I know the Minister will understand this, those of us who have spent a lifetime in formal education see time as very different than if you are home educating the people.

We have lived a life of splitting learning into blocks of time. So if I say appear.half a day or whatever, everyone who has taught or been a parent knows that we are thinking in 40 minute chunks or an hour chunks. One of the things I had been attracted by from parents who educate at home successfully is that they use time and space and skills, in a completely different way than those of us who are teachers of formal education and I worry whether we are trying to make them fit into our concept of who tortured, how much time was it and what did you cover because if that was the case, I really do think that we might be losing the good essence of what some parents are doing with home educated children.

My last point is this. When that information is provided, against what is a judgement being made? If it's being sent to somebody like me, who has a very particular understanding of what education is like, if it is somebody who has already got background in home education, our judgement will be different and I'm not clear whether this is just provided so we have got it, or just provided and adjustment will be made about whether it's appropriate. My question would be if it so adjustment will be made, presumably by local authority, what assurance can we have that they have sufficient understanding and experience not to budget just against the criteria of what formal education normally constitutes.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have a decoration of interest to make. I member of the Northern Ireland curriculum taskforces advisory. I want to support amendments proposed by noble friend Baroness Barran but also to
12:49
Baroness Spielman Portrait Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
support and echo some of the comments that have been made by Baroness Morris, Lord Young and others. To put 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 And my counterpart, when I was cheap and spectacle of my counterparts in other countries were often astonished at the degree of freedom parents in this country have.

There are countries where home education is simply illegal. There are many countries where there are significant controls on the quality. So just take one example, in Flanders, I recently talked to the Flanders, I recently talked to the Flanders chief spectacle first, parents must have the child to the end of primary school tests there and if they fail, they have one further opportunity and if they don't pass either time they must be registered into a school. Similarly there are provisions that if parents heatedly refuse to allow a local authority employee to visit there time, then the child must be registered at school.

I'm not advocating the specific glass and putting it in context. Lord Storey made important point this is not a single community. People have referred to community. There are communities around what you might characterise as the archetypal homeschoolers, many of them excellent, and which includes many parents of children with special educational needs of various kinds. They are strongly represented in foreign support groups, -- forum support groups. There are also many parents who don't take part in these kinds of groups, there are parents of children in illegal schools, parents of children who have been essentially forced out of school, off rolled, who typically have substantial behavioural problems and also often significant educational needs and whose parents are disproportionately unlikely to be able to give them a suitable able to give them a suitable education.

There are parents who are simply, who have 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 work made me strongly supportive of a register and I spoke with Lily about this over many years. But I think it's important to be clear about a couple of things. My understanding is that this isn't traversing that historic presumption that parents are free to home educate. So if we draw out the questions I think register is helping local authorities answer, it's the first, is there any reason to think this child will not be getting a suitable education? It's not micro-assuring that yes it's definitely suitable, it's the other way.

Somebody, it's not aiming to provide absolute certainty around safeguarding. It's, are there warnings or flags that suggest that some more work might need to be done. And thirdly, it's about gathering some of the administrative data that governments, central and local government need to understand, understand what they need to provide, where rules and incentives need to change. Being clear about those purposes, 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 micro- judgement, the quality of what every parent is doing at every stage.

I don't think that is there but it could be helpful for it to be explicit that that is not the case. It is important that does not become a register of concern, so I think the requests for exemptions are sadly a little bit misguided because they would narrow this down to being a register of consent. 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 at sup to the totality.

I started today intending to support the pragmatic amendments proposed by Baroness 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 there is a simplification that the government might consider that would help actually draw together and streamline the thrust of the points that had been made around carers for example, Baroness Morris's points, if it is information that we would normally expect to be collected in the administrative data section of a school register, then it should also be in the not in school register.

Where perhaps over complicating it, in terms of what is collected about the education itself, I've got another point to make which is, I think it is important not to push this to Fat. This register, to the extent it contains subjective information about how children are being educated, or children are being educated with flexible models, how much time they are spending on maths, English or whatever it might happen to be, it will not work well, different parents interpreted very differently.

It's the kind of information that even constructing a research study it's hard to do well. So I would suggest there is room for taking this back but, in the light of those purposes I outlined. And commissioning research studies, sample studies, where appropriate. Similarly, lovely as it would be, it is never going to provide, the register cannot provide all the information that a social work department might need to decide that an investigation was necessary. So thinking about what his that is straightforward to collect, not subjective to answer and that will help treat the doughnut we expect, that will not create administrative monster that information that turns out to have a list of little value in practice.

I think that is all I wanted to say. I support this register strongly, as I have said but I think there is one iteration further that can be done with these provisions to make the register as clean and as effective and are supported as it should be. Thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. I wish to follow on, I think my
12:56
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wish to follow on, I think my noble friend has given an introduction to the comments I wanted to make relation to amendment wanted to make relation to amendment 260, in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran and the noble Lord Lord Hampton. As she mentioned, phrases like not push it too far, or take a step back from this, and the noble Lord Lord Crisp outlined in a previous group that I think it's really important that they should be proportionate reporting, and information collection, and in relation to amendment 260, get down to, and I'm lawyer by training and I have been in government as a minister, these clauses, the government love them, to collect if it's reasonable to obtain it, any other information about the child's characteristics, circumstances or needs.

And then the only caveat to that is, though should be included in the register, for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding the educational welfare of children. My first point in relation to that is previous, that is item M. We have asked for and of a lot of information before have got our lovely scoop it all up close. And is characteristics limited to protected characteristics, that is a separate subparagraph in this clause, so I suspect it is not. So what kind of characteristics will be asked to families in relation to their children? What kind of circumstance, what limit are on their needs.

It is an enormously wide power for them to be able to be reasonable to obtain this information. The only limit on it is for the purposes of promoting or safeguarding educational welfare of children. Part of that limitation is well-known. It dates off the Children Act which we are there to promote and protect the safeguarding of the welfare of children but here we have the safeguarding of education. The slightly new concept that is there is 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 in that I don't think that that kind of scoop it all up information of parents in these circumstances, particularly those who may have good reason withdrawn their children and I conceal kinds of headlines and problems if this kind of information on such a broad basis is asked of parents, rather local authority and then I think will be challenged legally to define such a broad clause the government seem to want and also will be the subject matter of complaints of intrusion, and although I agree with the noble Lady Lady Spielman, obviously this is not to back that presumption that it is for parents ) I think such a wide clause giving the local authority such extensive powers to ask for basically any other information risks changing that perception or at the very least creates a perception for parents but it has been changed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to add to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to add to the
12:59
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
257, A, from 257, A, from all 257, A, from all sides 257, A, from all sides of 257, A, from all sides of the 257, A, from all sides of the House and 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 society go to kinship carers for the burden they take on and the large number of young children they keep out of the care system.

A disproportionate cost financially and to themselves locally and develop mentally. I think the same is true of young children who end up being carers. As 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, 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 themselves, is extraordinary.

If one was going to write a script for television plate where one tried to emphasise just how difficult the situation is can be, you would just need to look at some real-life examples. So there's a young lady called Ashley in Newcastle who is 11 years old. She cares for three members in her immediate family. Her father has a mental health illness. Her mother has a number of physical health has a number of physical health And to compound matters, one would imagine it would be helpful that the mother, who has physical health issues, in a previous life when she was better, was a teaching assistant.

Because she was a teaching assistant machine of exactly how to respond -- She knew exactly how to respond, when the authority sent out a questionnaire asking what was going on and homeschooling, so the mother was able to fill in the form to make it clear that everything that should have been happening was happening, when it was not. And the mother felt that the situation that she and her family were in, there was a greater need for the family to have a more concentrated time of their 11-year- old Kerry child looking after them, then it was to pay attention to the needs for home education.

That is the situation at one find oneself in. -- That one find oneself in. If you look at the statistics, the number of children last year that the home educated us about 111,000. If you look at those 15,000 children who are caring for 50 years or more, that is a very significant proportion of home educated children, and I do think we have a moral duty to recognise the enormous health those children are provided through know which of their -- Through know which of their own, but the enormous burden that is placed on there needs to be recognised, and I think the solution that Lord Young's amendment has found, which I understand is the active support and engagement of the government, will actually happen, because I do think these children deserve all the help these children deserve all the help we can give them.
13:03
13:04
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

argument. I think what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said is hugely important, as Crisp, said is hugely important, as is the response from Lady Morris and the words from my noble friend, Baroness Spielman. This is a set of amendments here, where it is really unclear how they are going to work, it is really unclear whether they are proportionate, and I think we would really like to get a good understanding. We can see there is a purpose, we can see they are important, but we really have concerns about how these are going to, how the demands are going to fit with reality, how they are going to work in particular circumstances.

I will not go into the details amendments that I have, I will wait for the Minister's reply. But the government, and some of the points made by my noble friend, Lord Wei, made by my noble friend, Lord Wei, , but there should be no need for that to supply a private address. And indeed, there are other aspects where it appears that a company has to provide details of all the people applied, and what happens when there are those online companies wait when not interfacing with anyone at any obvious location? But it interfacing with the software.

It is really hard to read what you are supposed to produce and why it is reasonable to produce it. The amendment 248 highlights the absurdity of trying to quantify every minute where parents have their children continuously, and precise time login is trying to force home education is trying to force home education into a classroom straitjacket. Amendment 260, and particularly to earning 61, which my noble friend, Lord Frost, supported, this is breathtakingly open-ended stuff.

What is required here and why? What is the underlying purpose being served by these amendments? And we really have to be careful about going in for open-ended data collection. We can remember, those of us who have been here for a while, what happened after we passed our IPA in the way that local authorities started using it to find out parents who might be cheating when it came to saying what their address was full school applications.

Anything collected under here doesn't just sit quietly in this database, it becomes something that is available always through government. And will be swept up into the profiling systems, used by the police and security authorities. And we know from history that the work of, such as Professor Eileen Munro, that these systems tend to record deficits not strengths, and to build a negative pictures of people, and these particular results in children from black and other ethnic minorities being racially profiled at being bad, because people worry about them.

Then something appears in the database, then that is seen as a problem, and this information appears everywhere. We need to be really careful about how we allow information to be collected. And I don't see any practical provision in here that allows anyone to know what is on the register or collect what is on the register, in an effort to have some process for making it accurate when the local authority has just added stuff of its own volition to the register, it doesn't have to tell anyone he has done it.

It may be completely daft and inaccurate, but there is no precision for how it should be assessed and removed, they would need to look carefully at this. And Doctor Stephen's work on the Troubled Families Program, illustrates where this leads. Intrusive interventions justified by massive data calling, families bullied, to no good effect, with little evidence of positive outcomes. So, my Lords, I think in this sort of area, we should legislate with humility about what the state can manage. What actually is useful, practical? And we shouldn't be careful about turning supportive families into defensive ones.

And educational flourishing into compliance anxiety. And safeguarding it for intrusive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bureaucracy. My Lords, it is the group about gathering information. And it has struck me there are certain things about how we are collecting the right type of information. And are we ignoring other things? And one of
13:10
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
we ignoring other things? And one of the amendments here that really struck me was Baroness Whitaker's, why is that child being home educated? I think that would be a very useful addition to the register. Although, I am fully aware that other people are saying you may well gather more information, indeed get a sea of information, that ignores the key reason. As somebody comes to special educational needs, from special educational needs background, home education, I was familiar with lots of people who removed their children from school because of the school simply didn't have the capacity to teach them accurately.

Because the teacher has been trained to teach somebody who has more conversely confirmed with the norm and they have learnt perhaps to not conjecture of that. The same would be true of the point from Baroness Morris, which he said blocks of time sitting down, studying, is what education is. This is the education that has failed to that group. For instance, many schools say when they are given extra help, if you don't give them the right help, this group, because the learning plans are different, it still won't work.

So, there are lots of little things in here which I would like that the Minister would start to clear up. Too much information at the wrong sort will not help, but even then, there are certain other bits which probably should be there. Are we going to review this periodically? Are we trying to get a feel of it? Because, if we do not, there is a danger that we just overload. But, the register should be there because every child, and this comes back to it, is entitled to an education.

And as was very movingly put by my noble friend, Baroness Tyler, a carer, that child is entitled to some support, they are entitled to be able to function as an adult in the outside world after they finish their caring duties. Indeed if they ever do finish them. And if we do not get a word from that, I would like to know how we are going to use this information. It is a very difficult subject. It is not one that I envy the Minister, when she comes to answer this group, but is one that I think we are entitled to extract information from.

There are lots of situations here, where we need to get an approach more than we need to get an actual detail, in my opinion. Something that actually tells is it going to be flexible enough, does it have an understanding of the type of situation we are going into? Because we have suddenly heard they are variable. And anybody who had a look at this new they were variable. And so, I look forward to the minutes as reply and do not envy her task. reply and do not envy her task.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. So, so sorry. I have listened to members talk

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have listened to members talk on all of these amendments and it on all of these amendments and it has raised some thoughts in my mind, which perhaps I just want to say before dealing with some particular
13:13
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
before dealing with some particular amendments. One of the things that we perhaps, a result of having the register, will appreciate even more is never mind home education, currently we have 100,000 children missing. Not in home education, not in schools, omitting. -- Missing. I hope that if we establish a register hope that if we establish a register home educated children, we will know the exact number of missing children. And we will have a similar children. And we will have a similar objective to work out how we do some thing about it.

It is one of the highest in Western Europe. That is my first thought. My second thought was we constantly hear from schools about the workload that teachers have to have, and maybe some of the discussions about what we are requiring home educators, the information from home educators, would be music to teachers years as well. -- Teacher's years as well. Remember teaching in my first school, the head didn't require me to keep any records at all. He trusted me as a teacher, there was a syllabus and just got on with it.

After five years, I went to my second score and it was a huge culture shock because the Head Teacher demanded, we all our record books and had to write down in great detail, paragraph about every subject from maths, literacy, numeracy, right through to technology, what we were doing in that week. This discussion also relates to issues for schools as well. Each of these amendments has important things to say. And I was, I thought Baroness Spielman was right, in considering these amendments, what as a value, what adds little value? Sometimes it is not in plain sight.

For example, Lord Lucas said, to amendment 244, he sort of dismissed it as more bureaucracy. And I am surprised that Lord Hampton didn't get up because he has an amendment later ran on a 333, ZA, about safeguarding. I don't think many parents will know that currently, under UK law, and individual barred from working with children due to safeguarding risk or serious offences, including imprisonment, cannot legally offer one-to-one tuition to children, hired directly by the provider.

So, actually, that amendment of Lord Wei's which says, the amendment seeks to avoid having to provide details of staff, for example, online schools et cetera, is a mistake. We should know the details of individuals who are not parents coming into school to do tutoring. I coming into school to do tutoring. I coming into school to do tutoring. I I also want to briefly talk to the amendments, Lord Young of Cookham's and the first amendment which was slightly changed, we have heard from across the House how important this is stop I thought Lord Russell's examples, I could give my own examples from teaching, I think I mentioned this in the House before where a young carer, I still remember his name, Terence, Terry, was always late for school, the reason he was late for school was he was a young carer looking after his baby brother because his mother was a lady of the night, a prostitute, he had to get up in the morning, look after, the this child and get this child off to nursery.

Obviously Terry was always late for school because he was a young carer. I think that amendment, everything we discussed, -- of everything we discussed, was the most important. I thank noble Lords for highlighting that. Again, you look at these amendments, it is deja vu. Baroness amendments, it is deja vu. Baroness Barran talks about the issue of activities, museums, libraries, charities et cetera, about recording those. I actually think, again, in education, the opportunities for young people to visit museums, art galleries, to go on school trips, is probably educationally life changing probably educationally life changing for them.

An earlier amendment where the noble Lord talked about let's have a portfolio, teachers were encouraged of having portfolios of what children were doing outside of school. We have the dreaded records of achievements where we kept records of everything you achieved as children. I obviously upset the Minister. You liked records of achievement, did you? OK. The point I am making is that actually perhaps those parents, it should not be a requirement in the act that they keep portfolios but it is actually quite a useful practice to do.

I think we are coming to a consensus on this. It will be interesting when we go away and come back to report stage, that we have to have something that works for us all, it works for parents, it works for the children and it is not over bureaucratic. It is not something where, I say this as an aside, the number of Ofsted inspectors I talk to that have said, look, I can go into a school and straightaway no a good school without seeing anything, just by the atmosphere in that school.

I suspect when Local Authorities, if they have got the time and resources to go and visit home educators, and that will be a challenging thing. I doubt that will happen in many cases, I would like to see it happen, I would like to see a relationship between the local authority. They will know as soon they go into that House what a good home education is taking place here. So, let's from these amendments take what works and make sure that we come back with the system good for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our children. I will keep my remarks brief and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will keep my remarks brief and focused on my own amendments in this
13:20
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
focused on my own amendments in this group as I know we have a very ambitious target today to complete. I know noble Lords came in early in order to have a well-informed debate already. Turning to amendments 239, 243, 239 and 216, supported and elegantly introduced by the noble Lord, and also with support from Lord Crisp, amendment 239 would remove the requirement to specify the time spent by each parent educating their child described by your Lordships as potentially redundant information.

Amendment 243 would set a minimum threshold of would set a minimum threshold of To prevent parents having to record every piano lesson and burdening Local Authorities with information they cannot realistically assess and has many similarities to amendment 254 amendment 254B, I would not quibble with Lord Crisp, I think it was very well drafted. I think the spirit of the two amendments has much in common. Amendment 249 would exclude weekend and holiday activities so we bring home educated children into line with those schools, we would not dream of asking how they spend their weekends and holidays, we do not want every visit, however fascinating, or every swimming lesson with the local swimming lesson with the local , seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to require additional information.

The Secretary of State sees fit to be included, completely open for future Secretary of State to behave, what many of your Lordships might consider in a way that was unreasonable and unfair. I think it is excessive belt and braces which To reconsider. I beg to move the To reconsider. I beg to move the To reconsider. I beg to move the Let me speak to amendment 235A, tabled, introduced by Lord Hacking, although it seems this amendment had several parents and I will try to respond to the principles of it.

Amendment 239 in the name of Lady Barran, these amendments would mean that registers would only be required to contain the names and
13:24
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
addresses of the parents rather than details, parents would not need to provide information on how much time their child spends with each parent. their child spends with each parent. As I said in relation to Lord Lucas's amendment 238, there is equal responsibility in securing a equal responsibility in securing a For their child, this remains the case even if a parent is not case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and instead of securing other and instead of securing other providers to do.

In relation to providers to do. In relation to access to information, are on the access to information, are on the registers. I hope I have given some assurance in my comments in the previous group about the control and previous group about the control and the requirements for confidentiality around the register that would around the register that would But, for example, additionally, I'm 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 a child spends at a supplementary school in the week as part of their education or their whole education? In relation to amendment 230 5A, what if no parent proclaims responsible Ali Fiddy 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? Turning to amendment 240, 24147 in the name of Lord Lucas, these amendments 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 to the point about hours and time raised, I think appropriately, by Lord Lucas and Baroness Morris, in a moment.

But it is important that Local Authorities understand whether there are other persons involved in the education of the child. This, alongside information on how much time a child is educated by their parent, will support the authority to establish whether the education is full-time or not and fulfil their existing duty to identify children missing education. An important point which Lord Storey also brought to our attention. However, I once again

**** Possible New Speaker ****

want to thank... I thank the noble Lady the Minister for giving way. I just Minister for giving way. I just wanted to check whether or not the noble Lady will answer that supplementary questions I asked about whether the department or she about whether the department or she has in her mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that you are trying to get to through this process?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through this process? That is why I said I was coming to that in a bit. I am coming to it. And I will also answer the other And I will also answer the other point about the annual report as well. However, I want to thank Lord well. However, I want to thank Lord Lucas and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet with my taking the time to meet with my officials to outline in detail their concerns around the nature of the information that we are requesting.

I do understand the concerns not to I do understand the concerns not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may that effective home education may well involve. The range of different organisations who might be contributing to it and the burdens that might well be placed. I can that might well be placed. I can reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points that have been raised. Turning now to amendment 253 tabled by Lord Lucas, the amendment seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of which activities parents must provide information on the registers.

I anticipate the noble Lord has brought this amendment to reduce parental burden but it will do the reverse. It will bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information is any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education 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 works towards defined objectives.

works towards defined objectives. By case law. I recognise noble Lords are concerned about the burden of 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. We will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and consult about the details of it. Turning to amendments 243 and 249 , and 254B, tabled by Lord Crisp.

These amendments seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide information on. They set a threshold so parents only need to provide information on those organisations that offer more than six or 10 hours of education a week or that educate their child during the school day or one-off all largely social or recreational activities. While I appreciate these amendments are seeking to reduce burdens on parents, the exemptions could potentially leave large gaps in the overall picture of a child's education.

Particularly true if a child is attending multiple providers or does not follow the school timetable. In relation to amendment 245, B, we will make clear in statutory guidance that parents will not be expected to give details of noneducational activities for the The questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on why this isn't defined, I think actually, this question of course has been partly answered by my noble friend, Baroness Morris, who I think rightly identifies that the definition of identifies that the definition of education that we use in formal schooling, is sometimes almost by definition, not the form of education but those who have chosen to educate those children outside the school and will want to pursue.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, doesn't think USA is the question doesn't think USA is the question but it is precisely -- Doesn't think I am trying to evade the question but it is complicated. What we have said about suitable education is firstly, it will vary for each child, given their age, ability, attitude, whether the child has a special educational need or disability. As such, each individual assessment must rest on a balance of inevitable factors, given its child, there are no specific legal requirements as to the content of home education, provided that the parents are meeting their duty in section 7 of the Education Act 1996.

That means that education does need to include any particular subjects. It doesn't need to have any reference to the National Curriculum, there is no requirement to enter children for public examinations, there is no obligation to follow the school day, or to have holidays, we should actually have caused part of the reason why the point made by the noble Lady, Baroness Barran, about not understanding what it happening on weekends and in what is traditionally considered school holiday time, for children that are home educated.

So, in order to be able to make an assessment based on a whole range of issues that will be brought into consideration, local authorities will need the sort of basic information about what is being provided, that is set out in legislation. Although, I do also legislation. Although, I do also take the point that it will not be a case of simply adding up the numbers of hours being provided. It will be much more nuanced and careful than that, in terms of determining whether the education is suitable.

But in terms of the noble Lord's suggestion in regard to collecting less information via annual report, I know some home educators to provide detailed reports are local authorities on the content of their child's education. Which will include details of provided they may be using, but those reports are not legal requirements. And just to come back to the point made by the noble back to the point made by the noble Lord Crisp on this, local authorities who have a duty to find out whether the education being provided is suitable.

Many do this through asking foreign annual report, but that -- Asking for an annual report but that is not something that is a requirement of parents. Parents can evidence for the suitability of the education they are providing, in different ways. Authorities that received very detailed reports about a child's education also of course may still have limited visibility on where they are being educated and who is providing the education. Some parents will choose not to provide an annual report, but instead, provide information as to the content of their child's education through a visit, phone call, or other method.

I do not think, from the theme, from the point being made by noble Lords about burdens, that they are suggesting that we should move further, to mandate an annual move further, to mandate an annual Turning to amendment 244, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham and amendments to 45 and 246, tabled by Lord Lucas, which attempt to exempt parents from needing to provide the information, such as home addresses, the required information will only include the provider's name and address, where the education is taking place.

The personal address of a provider would only be required to be recorded if there is no business address, or the person providing the education was doing so from a private address. Whether there is education taking place from an online provider, parents can provide an email address or website. Some form of identifiable information is needed, so local authorities can determine which education providers are supplying or supplementing the child's education. Local authorities will also need contact details, to exercise their power to request information from providers that fall within the scope of the new duty outlined at section 436 that fall within the scope of the new duty outlined at section 436ED.

Turning now to amendment 248, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and amendment 264, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to Stomach time records are registered as perspective. Notwithstanding what I have said about ours and the nature of time used in home education. At not having some guidance would lead to inconsistencies across registers. The onus would be on parents and individual local authorities to determine how they define or estimate time, which would lead to reporting differences, and discrepancies. It would make it difficult for the Secretary of State to take a holistic view of the education taking place on national and local levels and identify where support and policy development would be most effectively focused.

Turning to amendment 250, tabled by my noble friend, Lady Whitaker, and amendments to hundred 51 and 250 7A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, these concern information at local authorities should be required to record on their registers and parents required to provide. I agree that information such as a families reasons for home education, or whether an eligible child a young carer, our important context for the local authority to context for the local authority to have, this information could reveal whether a child needs particular support or is likely to be missing education, for example.

It could also be used to identify with improvements I needed another part of the education system, as noble Lords have identified. I do think there are some very important broader points made in the debate about support for young carers, some of which are outwith the remit of this particular bell. -- Particular bill, but I think noble Lords will recognise the important case being made for maintaining and improving support for young carers. The point here is whether but not these bits of information should be mandated through the amendments in the way in which they are.

My noble friend, Baroness Whitaker, seeks to require local authorities to include the reasons why a parent of a child has chosen to home educate. I know that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she is aware... I apologise for interrupting my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise for interrupting my noble friend in her answer. My amendment actually said that schools amendment actually said that schools should get this information so that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should get this information so that they should learn and educate children better. Of course, some local authorities, but schools as well. I do understand the point made by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do understand the point made by my noble friend. And I think when children's parents ask for their child to be taken off the role of a school, which of course is school, which of course is school, which of course is absolutely the right, and the school should do that, they should also, as my noble friend says, reflect on the my noble friend says, reflect on the reasons why the child is, the reasons why the child is, the parents are wanting to home educate that child.

More broadly, in policy terms, will be to reflect on points made by my noble friend and others, made by my noble friend and others, about where the reason is less a positive decision about home positive decision about home education and more aware it is a concern about provision for children, whether with special children, whether 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 what 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 is a young carer could be prescribed , setting the child's needs in interactions with the local authority, and if proscribed, local authorities will need to record this information, if I have it, or can reasonably obtain it. And we will consult on the content of these regulations, and they will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure and I hope this will help to ensure the information prescribed for inclusion in authority registers is appropriate and useful.

However, it is necessary that the information outlined in the noble Lord, my noble friend's amendments, remains voluntary for parents to provide. Some parents, the reason they have chosen to home educate is deeply personal, requiring it could cause peasants to try to avoid registration altogether, making it more difficult for -- Parents to try to avoid registration altogether making it more difficult for those children who needed. Turning to amendments and 60 and amendments to hundred 61, which in some ways make the reverse arguments being made in the previous two amendments -- Amendment 261, a point also made by the noble Lady Baroness Berridge.

These amendments aim to restrict any further information from being proscribed for inclusion or recorded by local authorities on their registers. Other than that set out on the bill. Just to be clear, the purpose of these powers is to ensure that local authorities are able to include useful information in their registers that is not been explicitly registered in the registration or prescribed through legislation. It will allow that to be recorded. We don't want local authorities presented from making their registers a productive door, due to a lack of flexibility.

-- A productive tool.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, local authorities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, local authorities already have, on page 56, line 32, already have, on page 56, line 32, subsection 3 of the bill, they would have the power in legislation to have the power in legislation to include " Any other information the local authority considers appropriate." My amendment to have appropriate." My amendment to have been 60 limits the power of the Secretary of State to expand it in anyway the Secretary of State seemed anyway the Secretary of State seemed appropriate.

-- Amendment 260.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

appropriate. -- Amendment 260. I will come back to the noble Lady as to whether or not that good provide the flexibility that needs provide the flexibility that needs to be potentially within a baleful to be potentially within a baleful because I think the fear -- Within the bill. Because I think the fear is that, several nobles argued, there are arguments for the there are arguments for the inclusion of information, that could be very helpful for identifying be very helpful for identifying whether a child is receiving a whether a child is receiving a suitable education, and furthermore, what support is possible to provide and should be provided for those and should be provided for those children and we wouldn't want to make the registers, to reduce the usefulness of the registers, due to that lack of flexibility.

But the point here was coming here, too, which I think is an important point, is that it is not the case, or I must stress that, parents are under no obligation to provide any further information, even if local authorities ask for it. I think this has been a point of concern for some parents about the extent to which they will be expected to provide that information. That is not the case, it's simply about how we can, as several noble Lords have rightly argued, how we can ensure that these registers are as effective and useful while being as burdensome as possible, that we are all striving to achieve here.

I hope for the reasons I have outlined, noble Lords will flow able to withdraw their amendments at this point. -- Will feel able.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will pick up on a couple of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will pick up on a couple of points to noble Baroness me. -- The noble Baroness made. I think this will be a very interesting point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry? My Lord, ever so sorry, I don't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, ever so sorry, I don't think this is in order. We have heard from the Minister, now it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard from the Minister, now it is for the person who moved their amendment. My Lords, this is committee, you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is committee, you can have as much back and forward as you wish, this is basic committee rules.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am advised it is unusual, my Lords, very unusual. But if the noble Lords will keep his contributions exceptionally great. contributions exceptionally great. -- Exceptionally brief. The noble Lords made an intervention and the Minister during her speech. With Minister during her speech. With pertinent points. It really is another time for noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and your frontbenchers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

green with me. Having been in this House for 30+

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having been in this House for 30+ years, you listen to the Minister, understand the Minister is saying, and if what the Minister is Satan requires some further questioning, this business of interrupting the Minister in the middle of her speech when you haven't heard the full speech is I agree a relatively modern thing but it is clear the committee of the conversation and committee of the conversation and the place to inflict it is report. This is what committee is, it is not before the Minister sits down, it is I will take the advice of the clerks over lunch, but to make the point here, the noble Baroness and saying she will put things in guidance.

I think it is a good demonstration of what the limitations of the guidance are, 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 the terms? The bill says everything must be recorded. The noble Baroness is saying only some stuff needs to be recorded. Is there really the power in guidance to do that? I think otherwise, the structure of the bill needs adjustment.

Secondly, I would encourage her, if she does not want to go the whole way, as Lord Crisp does, at least make it clear, probably in guidance, doing this in an annual report is an option, otherwise this bill is saying it should be done within 15 days.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been a very good debate, as my noble friend recorded in her as my noble friend recorded in her remarks. And it has gone on for now remarks. And it has gone on for now over 1 1/2 hours. I have always been supporting of the register. Lord supporting of the register. Lord Storey was wise to remind us of the Storey was wise to remind us of the large absenteeism of children not receiving any education at all. I receiving any education at all.

I only want to make a request of the only want to make a request of the Minister on two points I am now raising, one is to make a request of the Minister after these very productive discussions we have had productive discussions we have had with her officials and with her colleague, that if we can see before report, and I hope we have persuaded report, and I hope we have persuaded her and her officials, that there are important amendments the government could make following the discussions.

I put in the request discussions. I put in the request discussions. I put in the request that we may see the drafts of those reports, the drafts of those amendments before we go to report. It would be very helpful and it would enable us to know what to do ourselves when we come up to report. The second comment I would like to make on... Arises out of the make on... Arises out of the amendments Lord Young of 251 and Lord Crisp of 254.

We heard earlier replies of the Minister on those two amendments. And the reason for me drawing attention is I think they were both very valuable amendments. And should be given close consideration. The Minister then replied that we could clear it all up in the statutory guidance provided. 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 are under that we have to follow, the nation has to follow.

What is worrying with the statutory guidance, what they are going to say and how they are going to change the application of the bill. That said, I am withdrawing my amendment but thanking more noble Lords for now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over 1 1/2 hours we have debated. Is it your logic pleasure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your logic pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? It is withdrawn. Amendment 237 has already been called in its proper place. Amendment 238, Lord Lucas. Not me. Amendment 238, Lord Lucas. Not me. Baroness Barran. Not me. 240, Lord Baroness Barran. Not me. 240, Lord Lucas, and 241, not me. 242 is being withdrawn. Amendment 243, Baroness Barran. Not moved. And amendments to Barran. Not moved. And amendments to 442248, Lord Lucas, on behalf of the noble Lord, amendment 249, Baroness Barran, not moved.

Amendment 250, Barran, not moved. Amendment 250, , Lord Young, not me. Amendment 252 has been withdrawn. Amendment 253, Lord Lucas? Not moved. And 254 has Lord Lucas? Not moved. And 254 has already been debated. Amendment 254,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A, not moved. Lord Crisp, not me. I beg to move the House be resumed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is there has been a resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. The question is there has been a resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. We will now take a short break in order for the House to be ready for Oral Questions. I beg to move the House do adjourn during pleasure until 2:30.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

until 2:30. The question as the House adjourn until 2:30. As many as are of that until 2:30. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content." Of the contrary, "Not content." The
13:53
None Portrait House Adjoiurned During Pleasure - Until 14:30
-

14:31
None Portrait Oral questions: Recruitment of young people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to the Civil Service fast stream summer internship programme Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lourdes, Lourdes, first Lourdes, first oral Lourdes, first oral question,
14:31
14:32
14:33
14:34
14:35
14:35
14:36
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
None Portrait Oral questions: Review of public order legislation regarding clarity, efficacy and compliance with fundamental rights and freedoms Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

important security issues with the sensitivity of them, and I take the noble Lords point very seriously and noble Lords point very seriously and I will report back to him.
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:19
15:20
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I beg to move Amendment to 55. It is my intention not to speak to these members but to await what the Minister has to say about them in order to shorten debate. I would like, in view of the conversation if we had questions to reconfirm to noble Lords that under paragraph 431 of the companion, when the house is in committee, there is no restriction on the number of times a member may speak so a member may speak after the Minister.

The Minister may speak during the mover of the groups response to the Minister. The back and forwards may involve as many sessions and ministerial intervention as possible which is completely unnecessary to use the term for the Minister sits down at committee. Committee is a three for all. It is an opportunity to focus on the real issues of the group, and have time to talk them out and get to other issues, even if that takes a certain amount of backwards and forwards.

The great advantage is that noble Lords don't need to speak until they are absolutely sure that the point they want to talk about hasn't been covered by other people and has been answered by the Minister. You can wait to see what the Minister says, and only then, if you feel what you wanted to say has not been said, you can say anything. It is a great technique for focusing debate and shortening group. Which is something that I hope the government will find helpful.

So, I beg to move and look forward to the Ministers response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 31 Clause 30 1H 55, leaf outlines 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 30 1H 55, leaf outlines 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 30 1H 55, leaf outlines 20 My Lords, I rise to speak to this group on the children not in school group on the children not in school register that seeks to look at issues around privacy. The children not in school consultation aim to not in school consultation aim to collate thoughts and views around local authority registers of local authority registers of children not attending school in order to ensure that all children order to ensure that all children receive a positive and beneficial education, regardless of where that education, regardless of where that education might be taking place.

education might be taking place. There were close to 5000 responses predominantly from parents, but also, from both local authorities also, from both local authorities and charities, and the findings will help to weave a gold standard policy help to weave a gold standard policy and guidance which I'm sure all noble Lords wish to be entirely fit 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 that are not well looked after on the other.

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Barran who has already set out so well his match loyal opposition's view on these issues in the previous groups, so I will not attain your Lordships house by repeating those same arguments. same arguments.
15:24
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Amendments in group for which we have now got to concern certain information which the Secretary of State may describe in the registers is voluntary for parents to provide. This includes information on the child's protected characteristics which commitment to 556 to remove. Current and historic child protection to men and 2566 to remove, current or previous child in need status, the reasons for the child having looked after status on the registers which are moment 2586 to include, and reasons why the child is eligible for inclusion in the register.

Which amendment to 596 to delete. As mentioned in the previous group, the Secretary of State may prescribe in regulation information which the local authority should be required in the registers should they hold it or can reasonably obtain it. The intention is for this additional information to help local authorities to better understand and support children not in school. The Department will consult on the content of regulations following Royal assent. I suggest that the consultation process is the right approach to determine whether there is a case for omitting information or including details such as the reasons why a child looks after status in the registers.

With particular regard to amendment 255, and happy to reassure the noble Lord that the relevant provision is indeed compatible with European to human rights rulings. The memorandum makes this clear. Turning now to amendment 262 as tabled by Lord Lucas, the amendment removes the delegated powerful the Secretary of State and Welsh ministers to prescribe how registers must be maintained. This power is intended to enable 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 to be made, the format, and how registers should be Have a register of children not in school 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 related to upkeep in the future. As mentioned, we will consult on all regulations, all of one of which will then be laid via the affirmative procedure.

I hope for the reasons I have outlined the noble Lord will feel able to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. The amendment be withdrawn, the amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments to 56 and 257. Amendment Amendments to 56 and 257. Amendment 257 Amendment 257A. Not move. Amendment 258 and 259, Lord Lucas. Amendment 258 and 259, Lord Lucas. Not moved. I was somewhat Not moved. I was somewhat distracted. Amendments to 60, Baroness Barran, not moved. 261, Baroness Barran, not moved. 261, Lord Cross. Not moved. 262, Lord Lord Cross.

Not moved. 262, Lord Lucas, not moved. 263 has been Lucas, not moved. 263 has been withdrawn. 265 and six, not moved. withdrawn. 265 and six, not moved. withdrawn. 265 and six, not moved. 267, not moved. 268, not moved. 269,
15:28
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
withdrawn. 270, Lord Lucas. I beg to withdrawn. 270, Lord Lucas. I beg to move amendment to hundred and 70 and to address amendments in this group. to address amendments in this group. Amendment 270 would require a local authority to establish a parental authority to establish a parental advisory board. This seems to me to be a useful structure for ensuring be a useful structure for ensuring that parents and local authorities that parents and local authorities work together. Amendment 278 allows parents to provide information in parents to provide information in their own words.

It may seem a small detail but it is fundamental. The detail but it is fundamental. The High Court affirm that parents own High Court affirm that parents own statement is evidence of provision, but many councils insist on rigid forms that erase the richness of forms that erase the richness of home education. It is really important when looking at the variety of home education that it variety of home education that it can be expressed and not try to be can be expressed and not try to be squashed into a mode of expression which it is not suited to.

Amendment 280 requires that the information request be proportionate and relevant to education. Some councils issue elder for demands, daily lesson plans, samples of child generated independent work. This really comes into part of being able to demonstrate to local authorities what good practice is as we will discuss in later groups to work towards that. Amendment 281 introduces the word substantial to provide. Councils may well request relevant minutiae under the guise of safeguarding, and we all know which counsel they would choose to use as counsel they would choose to use as Amendment to 82 -- 282, I think it's important we look at the burden of parents and on local authorities of the information provision.

My understanding is this is a matter that will be addressed in the guidance. Look forward to that confirmation. Amendment 283 extends the line for registration requests from 15 to 30 days, the same time as allowed to respond to a parking fine. Many families deregister after trauma, bullying or unmet needs or crisis, there's a huge amount to do in the process of transferring to home education. Demanding full compliance in 15 days is not in many circumstances reasonable or humane.

Amendment 284 harmonises the timeframes ensuring predictability at a time when families may be under intense strain. 287 as a safeguard for if a parent doesn't provide information local authorities must not investigate without tribunal or magistrate approval. Again this comes back to making sure we are building up strong relationships between parents and the core authorities, so we don't get into this situation. Amendment 285 asks that families not be penalised merely for non-cooperation. Amendment 380 proposes an independent review of more than 50% of local authority reports are negative, this comes back to how is the DfE going to help bring local authorities up to speed where they dropped behind the performance expected of them.

Amendment 380 proposes an independent review, I said that already. Amendment 382 proposes a home education ombudsman, this is one of the fundamental questions that we have for the government. How are complaints to be dealt with? At the moment they are directed through the Secretary of State. It would be really helpful to have a good understanding of that process, what does it look like, how does it work, what is being asked of the Secretary of State, who actually will provide those functions, how will people be helped to understand what judgements are likely so they don't engage in unnecessary complaints and litigation.

A tribunal of some variety, whether of the government's current design or another, I think is a very important part of the system. Amendment 388 proposes a panel for home educated children, getting children's voices in this I think is important. Both my mother and mother-in-law were home educated, if asked I'm sure both would have chosen to be in school. So I'm all in favour of asking the children, and them having asking the children, and them having a voice in this.

Given that, I beg to move. to move.
15:34
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Amendment proposed, insert the words as printed on the marshals

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I rise to speak to my amendment, I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier today when clause 33 was debated. The Green Party had a very exciting The Green Party had a very exciting morning electing a new leader, and that's where I was. I very much hope that's where I was. I very much hope I'm not going to make a secondary speech, but with so many amendments in this bill it is at times very hard to see the way forward. And to hard to see the way forward.

And to actually follow through a clear line. So I'm going to make a speech, I hope not to make too many more during the course of this bill, during the course of this bill, however many amendments I put down. I declare an interest as a grandmother of three home educated grandmother of three home educated children, all with special educational needs. Two of whom are educational needs. Two of whom are now studying at colleges in Cambridge, the other one making short films about autism. My short films about autism.

My experience tells me that school is not suitable for all children. Not all children can find a suitable school, and you don't need to be wealthy to actually create a very rich educational learning rich educational learning environment out of school. Like many noble Lords I have had quite a lot of emails on this topic, and I sympathise very strongly with parents and grandparents of children with neurodiversity's. Home education can take on a myriad of forms which are far removed from the classroom, but are nonetheless 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. And parents with the time and inclination to provide their children's education knows that no teacher can possibly have their child's interest as much at heart as they do. And this bill reads as if school is the safest best place for all children to be, that simply isn't true. In fact for many children school is a very hostile environment, and by making home education harder for parents we are discouraging them from doing what is best of their child.

And for many others. Home educators give up their lives to improve the lives of their children, and to ask them now to continuously justify that choice and make that choice even harder by adding bureaucratic hoops and hurdles really isn't in the best interests of these children. You don't have to specifically disallow home education to make it unworkable, and home educators believe this register will place unworkable administrative burdens on families. I also believe there is an inaccurate conflation of home education with a safeguarding risk.

Evidence shows 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 we need to support action not just documentation for those children who are at risk. We don't need yet another diversion targeting huge swathes of decent people and leaving those in real need ignored. 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 is not good.

We should be supporting parents not criminalising them.
15:38
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I briefly want to speak to a few of the amendments. Firstly, on amendment 270. I think this is something that should be considered, and it actually happens with one local authority gets together home educators to share good practice and their experiences. I don't think it should be statutory, because it requires considerable organisation in terms of local authorities. But if home educators in a particular area working with a local authority wanted to do this I wouldn't be opposed.

It might happen formally or informally, but it should not be statutory. Equally, I also think that on the issue of voice of the child, perhaps the voice of the student, I think that is really important. One of the concerns I've always had with home education is not just about education, it's about socialising. And if you are home educated you have to work very hard at ensuring that the children and young people have that really important socialising that children need.

But again, I think this is something that could happen organically, it could happen informally. But it is not a thing we should just ignore, it can't be statutory. I think again on amendment 280, I think most local authorities would want to have the information. I don't see a situation where unless there was cause, as is set in the amendment, where 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

time. My Lords, the noble Lord Lucas raised concerns about parental and raised concerns about parental and child involvement at both a national and local level. It is of course important that local authorities do indeed consult with home educating parents, but His Majesty's loyal opposition is of the view that the establishment of a parental advisory board on the face of the bill is board on the face of the bill is potentially unnecessary, as suggested in amendment 270.

Or in relation to a children's board, as suggested in amendment 388. Moving suggested in amendment 388. Moving on to amendment 380. We want local authorities to be targeted in their authorities to be targeted in their investigations, and focus on those children who are not receiving an appropriate best in class education. They may be at risk, and we would therefore find it challenging to therefore find it challenging to support this particular amendment. On the other hand, an appeals process as suggested in amendment 382 may work well.

We look forward 382 may work well. We look forward to hearing the Ministers response on that particular amendment. It is frequently said that constructive challenge and laser focused scrutiny are the hallmarks of your Lordship's House. But when presented with an eminently sensible amendment, whose benefits have already been eloquently put by the noble Baroness Lady Jones, 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 they are also likely to be spinning many plates already. The amendments are self-explanatory. We look forward to the response from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Baroness the Minister. I'm somewhat disappointed that
15:42
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm somewhat disappointed that there hasn't been support so far to the amendment of Baroness Lawrence, -- Baroness stones, and amendment in which I join her. This is an important amendment and I would explain to your Lordships why it is so important. The provisions say it is basically to remove the provisions in 403 six -- 430 6B, the purpose is to ask the Minister to think again about it. These are the provisions that put under requirement of 15 days for all parents who either need to provide the initial information under 430 6C, name and home address of each parent, and also a lot of very detailed information about the home educators who will be doing the home educating of their children.

And if a parent is in breach of providing either the initial information, or any changes to the initial any changes to the initial information, they are then guilty of breaches of 436, D. The further consequence if they are in breach of 436, D, this is unfair and far too harsh on ordinary parents who are trying to do an ordinary job of homeschooling. I would ask the noble friend the Minister to think again about those provisions.

They are putting almost the schooling parent into a criminal capacity. That is just wrong. So I would be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister would think again about all those penalties. And remember, when those penalties. And remember, when you go to little E, there's a lot of detailed information provided for the Sunday schools the child is going to, evening classes for physical exercise and so forth. And there can easily be changes, there's a new gym mistress for the evening of physical education, or there's a new preacher at the Sunday school.

So they are very detailed matters, and it doesn't 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 just change within 15 days. This is just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I haven't spoken much at this stage of the bill, but having heard the noble Lady and Lord Hacking, I
15:46
15:47
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
As I've 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 is vital in order to identify cases of potentially unsuitable or unsafe education, and the amendments in group 5 concern this requirement for parents to give information, and also how local authorities must act in a transparent manner towards families in their area, but turning to amendment 277 in the name of the noble Baroness of Wiveliscombe, this effectively seeks to remove the requirement, and on the broader points that the noble Baroness made about homeschooling, I believe, had she been able to be here this morning, I completely understand why she might want to celebrate her new leader, but I recognise that she has a new leader, but had she been here, she would have heard important comments from myself 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, what there is this an intention to provide additional recognition and support whilst also ensuring that local authorities are able to carry out their functions by knowing where children are being educated in school. And I hope she will read my comment from this morning about that. Without a requirement on home educating parents to register with the local authority, the authority cannot be assured that they have filled their education duties towards children living in their areas.

This is an absolutely crucial component for the success of the registers, and if I can just bring my noble friend back to the point I made this morning, I was completely clear in one of my contributions that it is not the case that failing to provide information to a register would lead directly to parents having to face fines and penalties, and I hope that my noble friend will reread that to provide some assurance around that particular point that was made.

I recognise that there are those Voluntary Registers, but This Is Not the Case for All Because There Is Currently No Legal Requirement for Parents to Take Local Authorities That They Are Home Educated. Without Putting This Duty on Parents, Local Authorities Will Have No Assurance That They Have Identified Children Not in School in the Area. As I Previously Mentioned, the Duty on Parents to Give Information to Registers Is Separate but Complementary to the Annual Reports That Some Parents Submit to Local Authorities for the Purposes of Providing In-Depth Information As to Their Child's Information.

In Terms of Parents Giving Detailed Information As to the Child's Learning Objectives and Progress Towards These, We Want Parents to Have Flexibility to Submit Information in a Way That Works Best 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 Deserve the Same Level of Assurance. Turning Now to Amendment 278 Which Seeks to Allow Parents to See the Required Information in Their Own Words. I Appreciate How This Would Afford Some Flexibility to Parents, However, There Needs to Be Consistency Which Is Why We Are Seeking a Delegated Powers 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 This Form Is Accessible and Accessible for Families to Use.

Turning to Amendments to 80, 282 and 285, Tabled by the Noble Lord, These Amendments Seek to Restrict the Duty on Parents to Provide Information and local authorities to request information by imposing a time information by imposing a time limit. In 280 request information and impose a reasonable cause to suspect harm thresholds for further engagement. Amendment 282 provides a similar threshold so that parents will not have to provide intervention more than once every 12 months, and it goes further by introducing £5000 asking for introducing £5000 asking for information.

12 months will be too long a period for local authority to be unaware of the change to a registered child's education provision or personal circumstances. Education concerns can arise at any concern and local authorities must remain the ability to act proportionately to meet the safeguarding threshold. This risk inflating safeguarding with a separate duty to ensure a child is receiving a suitable education. Turning to amendments to a three and Turning to amendments to a three and 284, tabled by Lord Lucas which seek to seek alternative deadlines, we are keen that the length of time to respond is proportionate and balances the needs of the family which is why the bill allows the discretion to extend the timeframe for information.

This discretion could be used by local authorities they make a request at the time and it is likely that a family may be on holiday. Turning now to amendment 281 tabled by the noble Lord Lucas which seeks to require parents of registered children to only provide updates to the local authority when there has been a substantial change to the information in the register, we share the noble Lords ambition that the burden on parents to provide information is kept to a minimum, but we would have to ask what would count as a substantial change, for example, a child attending a setting for next half an hour a week could mean that the child was then attending that setting for 18 hours or more, intentionally indicating that the setting is operating illegally.

Even though it is just 30 minutes more, it will be right that the local authority would know about it. I know that the noble Lord is also concerned that families may over comply with a duty to update information, and I would like to thank him and other noble Lords for detailing these can and is to my officials during the July meeting. We are committed to ensuring that the registers work for everyone and we will continue to take into consideration the feedback that we have heard from your Lordships from home educators and local authorities.

Turning to amendment 287, in a situation where parents have not fulfilled their duty to give information to registers, the amendment would require a local authority to seek approval from the 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 enquiries as to a child's education is at best disproportionate, at worst it risks suitable education for long periods of time. If a parent of an eligible child does not provide required information for a register, local authorities may continue with informal enquiries.

They also have the discretion to issue a preliminary notice for school attendance orders. This notice would require the parents to provide intervention on the suitability of the child's education. These proportionate responses to ensure child is in receipt of suitable education. I will now turn to amendments 380 and 382 in the name of Lord Wei which seeks to establish new review processes, including in situations where it is believed that a local authority is acting outside of guidance or law. Local authorities are required to act in accordance with 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, a judicial review process, or 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 nonstatutory 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 and identify any outliers and offer further sub port to these local authorities where appropriate. For these reasons, while we fully support engagement and transparency between local authorities and home educating families, we don't believe that these amendments are the right way to achieve that aim. Turning to amendment 388 tabled by Lord Wei, which seeks to setup an annual review panel made up of home educated children to advise on legislation impacting him 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 him education and young people were able to feed in their views, including a call for evidence in 2018, a consultation on the children registers in 2019, and updates to the elective home education guidance in 2023. We would also welcome input from children as part of a future consultation on the children not in school statutory guidance as part of the implementation of the measures in this bill. I hope therefore the reasons outlined noble Lords would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I am very grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive set
15:58
15:59
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall list. This slightly unconventional way we're doing things today. But I we're doing things today. But I agree, probably in order. Looking down at these amendments, it comes down to the use of information. I down to the use of information. I would hope that education policy does follow information and knowledge. If you don't, and I am talking about the groups of home talking about the groups of home educators here who are not doing it because they like the idea that they are doing it because they have to, are doing it because they have to, because needs aren't being met, and because needs aren't being met, and you should find out certain things.

you should find out certain things. Retrospectively, it is a reaction to Lord Wei's amendment. The noble Lord Lord Wei's amendment. The noble Lord Lucas has different amendments about the use and storage of information. But I would hope that the government But I would hope that the government give some reassurance that we are collating information to make sure collating information to make sure that those who are educating to see that they feel that they have no choice have an answer going forward. This will be very important in the This will be very important in the government's long-awaited and I hope government's long-awaited and I hope not aspirational change to special educational needs.

I would hope they are collecting this. And making sure are collecting this. And making sure And then distribute the information afterwards, another valid point.
16:01
16:02
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I first sank Lord Lucas for stepping in and moving Lord Wei's amendment, and for all noble Lords amendment, and for all noble Lords for their contributions in this short but thoughtful debate. Fundamentally the government believes our understanding of children not can be improved by this bill. Although we have published aggregate data on children who are homeschooled and children missing education since 2022, our understanding of this cohort of children can be enhanced further through improved data collection from the department.

This data will help identify trends among the cohort of children and determine future policy needs. To reassure noble Lords, any data handled by the Department will be dealt with in accordance with data protection law and GDPR principles. Turning to the substance, amendment 271 table by Lord Wei, will disallow information stored on a register from being shared with any department. We believe there is considerable value in the Secretary of State being able to receive data from local authority registers to improve oversight in understanding of this cohort on national and local levels.

It will be easier to identify when children have fallen through the gaps. The information collected will be used for straightforward reasons, as outlined by Lord Addington. Analysis to identify trends to feed into policy develop meant, maintaining integrity register and ensuring safeguarding and welfare will allow us to identify why some children are moving out of mainstream education. The adoption of this amendment would have benefits as outlined in the bill. Moving to amendment 307, this amendment would require certain public bodies to process data to create a transparency register.

Including the four obligation record of disclosure circumstances. Transparency is an important principle, but current statutory accountability mechanisms and provisions already provide appropriate oversight. For example as part of the Department's commitment to transparency details from all organisations with which we have shared personal data are published quarterly on GOV.uk, alongside a short ascription of the project. Which I hope the noble Lord considers a suitable Safeguard. Turning to amendment 308, also tabled by Lord Lucas. As written this amendment would require local authorities would be unable to share individual level data with the Secretary of State unless it was in relation to the making of a direction about School Attendance Order's.

Other information concerning home educated children or children missing education may only be shared at aggregate level. The data processed through Children Not In School (Register) Bill's is envisioned to have wider uses than just issuing a direction in relation to a school order. It will provide for more robust data analysis and research and for the join up of functions noting educational safeguarding. For example sharing individual level data will enable cross-referencing with departmental databases to allow -- to locate children who have slipped under the Safeguard.

The provision in the bill for sharing information with Welsh Ministers could be used in a similar way to locate children who have disappeared from registers due to moving from England to Wales or vice versa. It would undermine the purpose of the registration system to limit the data it contains, statistics including School Attendance Order's. For reasons I have outlined I will kindly request

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lucas withdraws his amendment. I thought that was a full and
16:06
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
helpful answer for which I'm grateful, I withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. I understand Lord Wei is not in his understand Lord Wei is not in his place, amendment 272 is not moved. place, amendment 272 is not moved. That will bring us to the substantive amendment, amendment 274 in the name of Lord Wei. I wonder, Lord Lucas can step into the breach. Lord Lucas can step into the breach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lucas can step into the breach. This group seeks to ensure that the most intrusive elements of this bill, particularly the new register bill, particularly the new register for children not, is subjected to for children not, is subjected to robust rolling checks and ultimately remain only if they demonstrably work. The first amendment in this work. The first amendment in this group, 274, introduces a Safeguard group, 274, introduces a Safeguard that it should expire two years after its creation. This is to make sure that the system doesn't grow beyond its original purpose, without beyond its original purpose, without a clear review.

The troubled families program would be an example of a program that was sold as early intervention which had very little effect, and continued for some long while after people knew it was not doing anything useful. Or similarly prevent introducing a targeted strategy quietly broadened over time into schools and nurseries and local authorities. Systematic surveillance of Muslim families under the guise of safeguarding is what one UN special report called it. We have two review it, 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. This is a pilot, we will get a clear understanding of how the system will work before we have to try it nationally on a whole series of overstretched local authorities, some of which will find themselves 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 these sections, and lay findings before Parliament. If we are not going to actively review them, as previously proposed, at least we should be sure that we review them. Amendment 329, proposes an independent review board made up of home educators and educational law experts. One reason SEND tribunal's overturned 95% of local authority decisions is because independent panels exist to scrutinise for local reasoning. If we don't have independent review we are going to allow this new system, which we all wish to succeed, to decay unnoticed.

The volume of complaints we have heard from families who say our council simply doesn't understand autonomous learning, or they keep applying a rigid home at school template deeming everything else unsuitable, demands some oversight. The document shared with the government in Bristol points to that. Decisions not made solely by people who have very little grasp of the pedagogy embraced by the home education community. Amendment 388 from another group would give home educated children the direct annual power to advise the Secretary of State, as we have discussed.

These amendments are also about providing the proper balance between state oversight and family privacy. We have heard families voices voice profound fears about how softened safeguarding powers can often become heavy-handed. In one county a family the local authority insisted on seeing the daughter alone to discuss why she wasn't at school, despite clear evidence of school-related trauma. The family reported it felt more like in interrogation than support. At another Council they threaten School Attendance Order within weeks of deregistration, purely because they have no familiarity with on schooling familiarity with on schooling approaches.

My noble friend feels these proposals do not harm the school but strengthen it. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was 51, at the end insert the words as printed on the Martian

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dust. Rather foolishly I recognise in retrospect I added my name to retrospect I added my name to several amendments which are proposed by Front-Bench Members of proposed by Front-Bench Members of parties opposite, I therefore have to speak first on them rather than
16:13
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
to speak first on them rather than just say I agree. On this particular occasion Lord Storey has put forward an amendment that there should be a new clause which is 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. This seems to me, particularly in the light of this morning's discussions where we have looked in great detail at some of the impact on home educators but also local authorities and prepared local authorities, and expecting local authorities to up their game very considerably as a result of the number of measures in this bill, that it would be even more important to undertake such a review as this.

I know that the noble Lady the Minister has suggested that regulation will provide considerable flexibility. Some of us have been arguing that some of that flexibility needs to be put on the face of the bill, and there needs to be some parameters around it. But even if there is flexibility, it will be interesting to see whether this actually works in practice. So I very much in support of this amendment put forward by Lord Storey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A quick intervention on the opening comments for this group, opening comments for this group, just to counterclaim that the troubled families program achieved nothing. I don't think the evidence
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this has been a useful and considered debate and I thank Lord for their participation. Local authorities have existing duties to identify children in their area who are not registered at school and not receiving a suitable education to intervene in such cases. The ability has been undermined by their not being an obligation on parents to inform local authority that they are home educating. Statutory children not in registers and providers to provide information or support local authorities to identify those children not receiving suitable education and take action to address this.

Turning initially into 274, 2763 20, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish evidence on the impact and operation of children not in school registered within two years of their creation in order for them to remain in place. Relation to amendment 320, of course we would evaluate the impact of the registers on local authorities and parents for the implementation and bring forward any adjustments to your Lordships house as appropriate. In response to amendments to 74 and 276, the centre objective of the registers is to support local authorities to identify children not in school and the areas were not receiving a suitable education.

This is not just a tool for safeguarding. We therefore do not agree with amendments to 74 and 276. We are looking at safeguarding outcomes to the register success. Turning to amendment 329 also tabled by Lord Wei which would require the Sec of state to establish a board of home educators and educational experts to evaluate the impact of the registers, this amendment is necessary as we already intend to look at the impacts of the registers, and we have already established a form of home educators and other key stakeholders that we are engaging with on the registers, and we will continue engagement post implementation to evaluate the impact of the registers.

Turning to amendment 330, this amendment would require that the Secretary of State delay the international implementation of children not in school registers until a two-year pilot scheme has been completed. A pilot scheme before implantation is unnecessary. The bill provides for adjustments to be made for the operation of registers when needed including by regulations. With regard to amendment 331, this amendment 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 findings to Parliament.

While we agree that the need for regular and transparent monitoring of the regulations is important, 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 at different intervals. We need to see that interventions be made, and where this is the case, we will bring it to your Lordships house in the usual way. Finally, turning to amendment Lord five which seeks to ensure that all laws concerning him education are reviewed and will automatically expire after five years unless preapproved by Parliament for consultation.

We believe this would be the most efficient use of Parliamentary time and would only create uncertainty. The impact is regular but the timeline should be tailored for each act and each statutory implement on each part of the bill. Therefore, the reasons outlined, I would kindly ask noble Lords to amend their amendments.
16:22
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
And very grateful to those responses. I am delighted to hear that the form of home educators is to continue. Will the government consider producing an occasional communique from that forum, something so we can all know how something so we can all know how what is going on. We will start reviewing one year after. That seems a sensible timeline to me, but will she also commit to a baseline so we know where they have started from and not just where they are in years time, and will see make a different commitment to Parliament as to how commitment to Parliament as to how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is going and she has just made. I reflect on my session.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I reflect on my session. Is your moment that it be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your moment that it be withdrawn. Lord Wei is not present and will not be moved. 277. Not and will not be moved. 277. Not moved. 278, not moved. 279, not moved. 278, not moved. 279, not move. 280, not moved. 281, not move. move. 280, not moved. 281, not move. That takes us to amendment 282, not moved. 283, not moved. 284, not moved. 283, not moved. 284, not moved. 285, not moved. 286, not moved. 285, not moved.

286, not moved. 287, not moved. 288, over to you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you. This is an area where we have substantial conversations with substantial conversations with government, so I would prefer to start by listening to the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 31, page 58.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to 288 a which is in my name and which is the in my name and which is the counterpart in a way to 1 of the
16:24
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
amendments we have debated this morning which was where parents have to provide in information on providers. This is the information needs to be provided by providers themselves. And there are two points in it. I have used the same format as that earlier amendment that was discussed which says that a personal organisation is providing regular out-of-school education to a child not registered in school for more than 10 hours a week, and I also use the words it is not primarily social or recreational, and then takes place without any parent of the child being there.

I want to dwell on those two points, regular and not primarily social or recreational. The point about regular is we have touched on but not perhaps fully discussed that this should not apply to one off or occasional items. Some of which will come up short notice and couldn't be included in the register because the parents didn't know about that in time to give notice of them or whatever. But I think the point here is it would be extremely useful to have this on the face of the bill and not just in guidance.

It seems to me that we need some parameters, as I argued earlier, on the other occasion. Some parameters around what will come out in regulation. Regular is not a particularly difficult one for the government to include. They will only be provided to people who are regular definitions which will be needed. But the other point I want to dwell on a bit more is saying that these are not primarily social or educational. The noble Lady minister will correct me that, at some point, the noble Lady said that it wasn't expected that activities that are not educational should be included in the register.

The trouble is that a lot of activities like rugby training is educational or could be educational. Swimming lessons. But also, girl guides. I believe they are an educational charity. It will be easy enough to label these organisations of activities as led educational which is why am trying to turn it the other way up to say that activities that shouldn't be registered are those which are primarily social or recreational. It seems to me that this is a fairly simple judgement that can be made and it would allay quite a lot of fears, including the example that I used this morning though it may be regarded as educational.

The wildlife trust has already stood down its activities because of its concerns about the data that it will have to provide on all the children that use services as part of their home education programme which has been going on for some time. I would just ask the Minister looking at this to reflect a bit more on those two words, regular and not primarily sociable or recreational as opposed to the not educational aspect.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is relevant. I am a trustee of the Atlas foundation which helps a couple of groups to do with rugby who regard themselves as child who regard themselves as child benefits through using rugby. Rugby has a lot of structure and a lot of authority figures, and if you are authority figures, and if you are reliable there, you can reach people who are on danger of offending young people et cetera. At these groups people et cetera. At these groups going to be taken down there because going to be taken down there because that will not be the cuddly end of education.

These will be people not in school or out there who have in school or out there who have taken it because they don't like school and rejected school. They might be regarded as home education. What is their status? Because if you What is their status? Because if you do put burden on groups that are run do put burden on groups that are run by Anna to, i.e., people who do their own tax returns and have to put in their own returns, people who put in their own returns, people who are secretaries of organisations and so on, are you going to put that burden on them? A little bit of burden on them? A little bit of clarification here.

I think a little clarification here. I think a little bit of common sense might help it out, but if some of your client base are coming from here, what is the are coming from here, what is the status of that? If you actually putting another administrative burden on these things, these organisations which try to not spend money on admin, and actually able to help, you might be putting more pressure on. I don't think it would have been the government's intention, but making sure you don't catch them is very important.

catch them is very important.
16:29
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is a very large group of very detailed amendments that seek to clarify the responsibilities that the bill will place on providers and how they are expected to fulfil those responsibilities in practice. And the amendments which are mainly in the names of Lord Lucas and Lord Wei highlight the variety that exists in the range of approaches that are used to educate children at home, and I know that the noble Baroness the ministers earlier commit meant that officials would work through these with my noble friends and other noble Lords over the summer was very much appreciated by them, and I'm hoping that any outstanding uncertainty can be clarified when the noble Lady makes her closing remarks.

Amendments to 91 and 293 in my name and in the name of the noble Lord Lord Hampton are probing amendments, and I think at least in part been addressed by the Minister I accept the point that weekends across holidays might not apply to some home educated children, so no need for the noble Lady to cover that point again when she responds. However, we are slightly less clear, and I think the same might be true for Lord Crisp in relation to his amendment to hundred and 80 8A, about the duties placed on providers who offer irregular or brief sessions.

And like Lord Crisp and others we are concerned about sports, music and other activities. Lord Crisp argued there should be some parameters around these requirements to register and provide information. Sorry, for providers to submit information to the register. The Minister rejected the number of hours as a mechanism for parameter. So I think it would be helpful for her to set out beyond educational activities whether there are any other parameters the government sees being relevant here.

With that I beg to move amendments to hundred 91 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

293. You are keen for things to move
16:32
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

You are keen for things to move quickly and then they move a bit too quickly! The importance of out of school education providers to home school education providers to home educating families has been made many times already. I do want to recognise the important part these settings play, providing activities and education to a vast array of children. I hope these providers will recognise the measures included in this bill give no reason to cease this valuable work, notwithstanding I recognise the point made by Lord Crisp about the concerns of organisations as we clarify the intentions here.

We will continue to engage with the sector on the implementation of children not is, so they are confident in what the registers mean for them. Speaking to these amendments in group 8, which concern the duty on certain out-of- school education providers to give information for Children Not In School (Register) Bill's, I will turn first to amendment 288. Tabled in the name of Lord Lucas. This amendment 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.

Also 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 we will gladly support the registers on that basis. Turning to amendment 290, in the name of Lord Lucas, which seeks to remove the word structured from out-of- school education. Actually the impact of this amendment would ring potentially 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 proportionality is an ambition shared by many noble Lords in this House and has been an important theme of the debate today. This is not to say that informal or ad hoc educational arrangements are invalid. We know that some home educators show child led approaches to learning, under the direction of their parent children learn from a wide-ranging people they meet in their daily lives. This is 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's also a important to note that the provider duty only applies where education is provided without any parent of the child being actively involved in the tuition or supervision of the child. This means that groups of home educating parents that meet up with their children are unlikely to be captured by the duty. The duty also only applies when an individual is providing the education. So creators of platforms for e-learning for example would not be required to give information on children who access their websites.

Turning to amendments to hundred and 80 8A, 292 and 293, tabled by Lord Crisp, Lord Lucas and Lady Barran. These amendments would limit the Secretary of State's power to set a threshold at which local authorities can request information from out-of- school education providers or exempt providers from the duty to give information by removing the requirement of education they provide on weekends to home educated children. 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 particular case. But of course, noble Lords very suggestions on where the threshold should be set, for example 6 hours or 10 hours, exemplifies 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 unnecessary burdens on providers. Noble Lords will also have the opportunity to debate the threshold when it is set in regulations through the affirmative procedure's.

I also want to reiterate the intention behind the provider duty is to capture those providers who were involved in providing a home educated child's education, rather than organised activities that the child may be involved in four primarily recreational or social reasons, even if important for their development like the rugby example used by Lord Addington. As I highlighted previously, the ability to proscribe a threshold as well as the ability to make a regulation to exempt types of providers from the duty will help ensure that only those that are relevant are captured.

To give an example, it would be our intention to exempt those organisations that have a drop in dropout nature, or that happen irregularly. For example, and I think this was an example from my noble friend Baroness Morris this morning, museums that offer workshops for children or public lectures that are open to any family or individual to book, or periods of work experience as Lord Crisp has suggested. It would be our intention to exempt those organisations of those types of activities.

I know that some noble Lords are concerned that the provider duty introduces a disparity between schoolchildren and home educated children, but we must remember there is a huge level of oversight in term software and what children are learning at school. 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 implementation, we will keep engaging with the sector to ensure continuity of provision for home educated children.

I recognise how important this is. Turning to amendments to hundred 94 and 299, these seek to remove the requirement for providers to confirm two local authorities whether they are providing out-of-school education to a child for more than the prescribed amount of time, and remove the requirement to provide information on the amount of time they are doing so. Amendment 219 for -- 294, the legislation as drafted limits this to children that they are providing education to abra of a prescribed threshold -- above a prescribed threshold.

299, understanding the amount of hours children are attending such provision without their parents will allow registers for children who are attending unregistered schools. Some children not lie attending these illegal settings for long hours and not receiving a safe or suitable education. It is crucial the local authority as the information required to intervene in those circumstances. Turning to amendment 298, tabled by Lord Lucas, which seeks to further clarify the information providers are required to give local authorities on the total amount of time they provide education to children.

We believe this is unnecessary, the drafting is already clear that the total amount of time 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 details if necessary. Turning to amendment 296 tabled by Lord Lucas, which would require providers in scope of the duty to only provide information they already know to local authorities. Providers should already hold the required information for health and safety and safeguarding purposes.

They will only have to provide it on request. Enabling providers to only provide the information they know makes it too easy for unsuitable settings to just say "I don't know ", and keep children hidden away from the services that are there to support them. Turning to amendment 300, tabled by Lord Lucas, which removes the provision in section 436, E, that the local authority must send or leave a notice at the place where the education is provided. Providers in scope of the duty need clarity in terms of how information will be requested.

I acknowledge the noble Lord has tabled this amendment due to his concerns as to how the current provision will work for virtual providers. The legislation already provides for a notice to be served electronically, we can make this clear in statutory guidance. Amendments 301 and 302, tabled by Lord Lucas, which seek to extend the time period to respond to a request for local information. It's essential local authorities have the information as soon as possible so they can ensure their registers are accurate and identify children that should be registered but are not.

The timeframe to give the required information is at least 15 days, a local authority has discretion to extend the timeframe for example to account for closures over holiday account for closures over holiday periods. Turning to amendment 303 and 304, and amendment 305, these amendments set out reasons to exempt some out-of-school education providers from monetary penalties should they not provide requested information for a local authority register. A local authority does not have to impose a monetary penalty on providers should they fail to provide 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 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 this bill. I think this is sufficient recourse for providers who disagree with their monetary penalty.

I hope for the reasons I have outlined and for the explanations I have provided noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments. their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just follow through the point, the noble Lady made some excellent and very clear statements excellent and very clear statements in response to my amendment, which I believe are extremely useful. Would she consider putting any part of she consider putting any part of that on the face of the bill? It seems to me the noble Lady was very seems to me the noble Lady was very clear and definitive, and it was beyond the wit of the Department to come up with some clever words that come up with some clever words that would indicate what you stated, what the noble Lady stated without making the noble Lady stated without making it very difficult to introduce legislation later.

Perhaps that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation later. Perhaps that is something the noble Lady would consider. I have stated it on the record

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have stated it on the record here. I think I have also identified one of the problems with putting it one of the problems with putting it on the face of the bill, and I particularly use the example of if particularly use the example of if there were time limits where so far we have had two different suggestions as to whether there should be six hours or 10 hours. should be six hours or 10 hours. What I would be willing...

The noble Lord knows this, I think there are Lord knows this, I think there are real difficulties and inflexibility is in placing that sort of detail on the face of legislation. What I would be more than happy to do is to write to the noble Lords going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. And of course, I think I'm right in saying they will be legislation that will also be subject to consideration by this House as well. So I hope that will reassure the noble Lord.

Much as I know people love things to be on the face of bills, I really genuinely think in this case we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to ask one question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to ask one question. Maybe I have missed it out, but the noble Baroness tabled amendment to 95. I don't think she spoke to that 95. I don't think she spoke to that amendment in the debate we have just taken place, and I'm not sure I have taken place, and I'm not sure I have had any reply from my noble friends. It is important, this amendment It is important, this amendment because once again, detailed information has been sought from parents, and if they are in breach of providing that information, they of providing that information, they are exposed to monetary penalty.

I are exposed to monetary penalty. I would be very grateful if I could be told if my noble friends has dealt with it, and perhaps the noble with it, and perhaps the noble Baroness Musk am can join in and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

help here. I can reassure my noble friends

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can reassure my noble friends that I did cover amendment to 95 by the noble Baroness Musk, and what we are talking about in these provisions relate to penalties on providers. We have moved on from discussions that we were having about the requirements of parents to provide information, and I hope my noble friend will look back on what I said. I think I did provide quite considerable reassurance about the process and the range of circumstances in which monetary penalties most certainly will not be the first thing that would be looked to in relation to a failure by providers to provide information.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will give an undertaking to properly bring Hansard after today's debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. I was late the debate so I have no right to speak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I would I would like I would like to I would like to thank I would like to thank the I would like to thank the noble
16:48
16:50
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
name of Baroness barn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are to speak to amendment 306 in my name which would require the Department for Education to publish Department for Education to publish the aggregate GCSE results of those children registered as being educated at home, and I stress the word because I think there was some confusion when this amendment was confusion when this amendment was debated in the other place as to whether we were seeking to punish the individual results of individual the individual results of individual children which is not the aim of this amendment.

The aim is to give this amendment. The aim is to give some relevant insight from this data, including what percentage of children who are electively home educated and upsetting public exams, what those results are and what percentage are not sitting public percentage are not sitting public exams. Our amendment would see these results being published separately results being published separately from those relating to schools so that the data would not be confused. I am puzzled as to why the government wouldn't want to publish government wouldn't want to publish this information.

Touching briefly on the other amendments in this group, amendment 317 is very much in the same spirit of my amendment 306 in the name of my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei which seeks similar data in relation to home educated children and those looked after by the local authority, those in special education or at school. And I wondered whether the noble Baroness the Minister thinks this would 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 probes the provision of financial support for home educated children setting public exams and the noble Baroness the Minister will know that there are real issues in practice about these children being able to sit public exams and finances one part of that, and I appreciate the pressure on local authority budgets, but of course, these are effectively children who save the state money, and I for one would be keen to see as many as possible sit public exams.

Back to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

306 clause 1 at the end, insert the words in the Marshall list. I
16:52
16:53
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I have amendment in this group. That rather expands the range of groups of children who are under the care of the state and not in a specific school. I think it is really important for the government of education in this country that we understand how all of our children perform. I would expect a local authority to take an interest in the examinations of children, of home educated children and these other groups in their local area.

I would expect the Department for Education also to be interested, not for year-to-year panicking but a determination to understand what the difficulties and differences are and how we have time to drive the results up. So I think the basic starting of that is to get the data out. I don't think, but equally if you're reporting at a national level, you're not reporting anything which has no element of things related 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, and I think that is very important part of how the state should have responsibility for what it is providing our children.

We agree with those saying when it is worth saying that we are bringing home education so much more in the scope of the state, that we should take responsibility for making sure that we take the crucial examinations that is extraordinarily difficult. We can help to travel hundreds of miles to find a centre. You can pay thousands of pounds to have access to an exam. Particularly when we have the Prime Minister borrowing a flat so that his child should have a quiet environment to take his examinations.

One hopes that the government realises that making it easy to take exams within a reasonable distance of home without undue stress on the finances is something that we should have as an objective, particularly as my noble friends says when they are saving us so much money.
16:56
16:57
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment 306, we also support this amendment and I will be interested to hear from the Minister why we would not want to do this. Amendment 316 in my name, I suppose it is easy to say that you chose to not let your children be part of the school system so you have to get on with it. You chose to home educate them so we are not going to pay for exams or whatever, and I think that is the wrong way of approaching this.

If we really want to make home education become more closer to local authorities and 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, and many of those come from deprived areas and families that have really struggled to find the costs for examinations, so this would be a hand of educational friendship to support this amendment.

We know that home educators take huge pressure off the education budget as a whole. They take shut off school roles, and I think it is the right thing to do. On amendment 478, I am quite fascinated by this amendment, and I'm quite looking forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I thought all high achievers, whether home educated or educated in a maintained school, and Academy, a free school, if they are high achievers, super high achievers, they will get that recognition, so I'm not quite understanding this amendment and perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
16:59
17:00
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Supporting children to achieve and thrive requires parents, authorities and education providers to work together and that is what much of our debate today has been about and our debate today has been about and speaks to the amendments in group 9 that concern the facilitation of examinations and the publication of examinations and the publication of exam results for home educated exam results for home educated To choose to do so assume full To choose to do so assume full responsibility which includes bearing the financial responsibility bearing the financial responsibility of doing so.

This includes deciding whether their child should sit exams and covering the cost to facilitate and covering the cost to facilitate this. However local authorities can and should be a source of and should be a source of information and advice for parents. Turning to amendment 306 in the name Turning to amendment 306 in the name of the Noble Lady Baroness Barran of the Noble Lady Baroness Barran that requires that the Department annually publishes do CSE data on children who were not in school registers.

The Department is responsible for driving high and rising standards in a state funded school system, and of course publishes performance data for schools and colleges as an accountability measure. I am afraid that carrying out the task by this amendment would actually be considerably more difficult than noble Lords have suggested. And also not likely to provide clear information that noble Lords have suggested it would. Parents also, parents often tailored the education experience of their children to suit individual needs.

And, as a result, met up not to follow the traditional route of GCSE needs or other formal qualifications. There is no requirement for home educated children to undertake national examinations. And, as I have said, somewhat not to follow this route. This means that outcomes are not separately reported as they would not fully reflect this group and would not be the performance of home educated children. It is interesting that the noble Lords have, quite rightly, emphasised the range of different types of learning that parents undertake as part of home education and it may well be difficult to only represent that and probably a false view of home education to only represent that through the publication of data relating to GCSE passes in a group that is particularly selective about those that they take further GCSE exams.

Turning to amendment 317 tabled by the Noble Lord Lucas, this amendment would require the local authority to provide an annual report on the education performance of children who reach the age of 19, looked after, children being educated under arrangements made by the local authority under section 19 or section 61, those that are on the children not in school register. For most of these groups there was already appropriate monitoring process in place for looked after, virtual school heads must publish an annual report setting out strategies for supporting educational achievement, perception 19 arrangements local authorities must maintain a record of provision, including progress, and for section 61 the local authority is required to undertake reviews at least annually, including considering process towards outcomes specified in education healthcare plans.

As I previously noted in response to amendment 306, the educational performance of home educated children would not be comfortable with children who attend schools and other mainstream educational settings. Furthermore the department publishes school education performance data to track the performance of individual institutions to keep them accountable. It would not be right for the local authority to publish data on home educated children in the same manner. Turning to amendment 316 tabled by the noble Lords story, this amendment seeks to create a duty that would enable home educated children to access national examinations on a parity with students with the school educated.

We share this desire to provide some support at home educated families was of the spyware introducing a support duty that will require local authorities to provide advice and information about a home educated child's education if their parent requests it. This could include guidance on how home educated children can access exams, for example. Local authorities have discretion to provide support over and above that requirement and new support duty. Home educated students can already access past papers to support example operation and receive help with identifying a suitable examination centre from organisations and the council of qualifications.

But our guidance is clear, parents that choose to home educate assume full responsibility for the education of their child. Finally, I turn to amendment 478, tabled by the Noble Lord. This amendment seeks to provide an official certificate of graduation for children that have completed education equivalent A-levels before the age of 16. I agree with the Noble Lord that it is important that any student, regardless of their age, gets formal recognition of the qualifications that they have taken. Any individual taking a formal consultation will receive an official certificate from the awarding organisation, confirming their attainment in those qualifications.

Those certificates provide formal recognition and in a qualification and individuals including early academic achievers would be able to use them to progress to further education or employment. I hope for the reasons I have are trying noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
17:07
17:08
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Can I come on behalf of of all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her response. I would absolutely support these sentiments just expressed by my Noble Friend Lord Lucas and the importance of understanding the outcomes for children who are home educated. And I think that in relation to my amendment 306 the reasons that the noble Baroness the Minister gave for not aggregating and publishing or even aggregating and not publishing their GCSE results, I wrote down that it was hard to do and would not produce the results we expect, but I think that it feels to me curious that one could not put a box on the form that a child would take to say that they were home educated but could be aggregated and in terms of the results we expect I think 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 is useful information. I do not really accept the argument that it really accept the argument that it would not produce the results, we do not have an expectation because we do not know what they are, but I think that more widely when there were very small numbers of children

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that were home educated it was perhaps. Just to be clear, I do not know

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just to be clear, I do not know That it would not produce the That it 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 and 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 word for their children, would mean that we would not be able would mean that we would not be able to formulate from that data the to formulate from that data the common view of performance that the Noble Lady is suggesting would the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

objective. Think the noble Baroness the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think the noble Baroness the Minister for that clarification. It is not producing the results that we expect, whether it is what she actually said, we can check, but I suppose the point I was trying to suppose the point I was trying to make is this is a kind of entry point question was to it is not going to give us a sophisticated going to give us a sophisticated analysis, but it gives us some perspective I think if we try to estimate in the House as to what percentage of educated children take GCSEs we might get very varying results, so even just knowing that might be very valuable.

Turning to the other amendments in this group I think the Noble Lady was clear that parents are fully responsible, including the financial implications of home education, but it was good to hear her reiterate the support duty including access to the previous example is and how that support duty is communicated is of great importance and with that I beg leave to withdraw amendment 306 in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 307, Lord Lucas, not moved, and 300 and, Lord Lucas, not moved. In that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and, Lord Lucas, not moved. In that case, we moved to 309 in the name of Baroness Whitaker. My Lords, I shall speak to
17:12
None Portrait AMDT: 309 Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I shall speak to amendment 309 in the name of the Noble Lord of Aberystwyth and the Noble Lord of Aberystwyth and the Noble Lady for whose support I am grateful. I also support amendment 309 in the name of the noble Baroness on language accessibility and amendment 420 6C on access to sport and recreation in the name of the Noble Lord Monaghan and I can see that the practical implications of that are a little complicated, but it is really important for educated set children to have the same encouragement.

My amendment would alter the behaviour of the registering authority in that it must offer, not wait for the home education support. This is, firstly, education support. This is, firstly, because parents and marginalised communities and the digitalised world and, in some cases, are low in literacy and may not know that the supporters available and, secondly, again, in the case of gypsy and traveller parents they may have led to distrust public authority because of the widely protested discrimination and prejudice they will have experienced.

Requiring local authorities to make the first move will enable the authority to identify more clearly what kind of support is needed and further find out what problems the child experienced in school that could be addressed and I hope my Noble Friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will accept these amendments. Clause 31 page 61 line 2, leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 31 page 61 line 2, leave out from the beginning to provide on line 3 and insert a local authority line 3 and insert a local authority
17:14
Lord Crisp Portrait Lord Crisp (Crossbench)
-
-
must offer to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 313 and 314 in this group that are built and 314 in this group that are built in my name and, in doing so, I in my name and, in doing so, I understand that I thought I was going to speak rather longer on this originally but so much has already been covered, including the fact that I was looking here for some that I was looking here for some very positive statements from the Noble Lady the Minister about home education generally which has been education generally which has been coming throughout this debate which is extremely good and I also delighted and supportive of the fact that the Minister also needs to send that the Minister also needs to send out some very firm messages about the people missing school, if you like, in the Noble Lord stories like, in the Noble Lord stories words I think something like over 100,000 home educated children but 100,000 home educated children but there is also another missing there is also another missing 100,000 that we do not know where they are, so there is a balance to be drawn between both of those.

And my two amendments here, tried to my two amendments here, tried to pick up on that point about rebuilding trust, really, trust in rebuilding trust, really, trust in the system amongst home educated parents and, indeed, perhaps amongst local authorities which have been quite badly damaged by a think in the original presentation of the bill, as has been said already in this series of debates today, there is a common endeavour here to support the education, welfare, and future of children and young people, some of whom are amongst the most vulnerable in the country.

Those are the children that we are speaking Throughout we need to get the balance is right in the bill between safeguarding and the necessary bureaucracy between parental and state responsibility and between necessary assessment and support and I do not think this is being achieved at the moment. I think that these amendments give two sets of very clear messages. The first 313 is a list of what it might be reasonable for a local authority to I suspect the noble Lady is going to say that all this ought to be done in regulation, but there are things here drawnout that indicate the sort of things we are going to be talking about.

As I said, the valuable bit of support is one in the noble Lords amendment, which is to have access to venues taking public exams. It is enormously difficult for that to happen. I think there was another range of items on this list, I am not wedded to the detail of this list, I am wedded to the idea there should be some examples of the type of support that can be and should be offered. And in some cases, there is good support, and in other cases, there is virtually no support, or indeed, think a lot of home education parents would say no support.

The other side of this is the duty and the local authority, in terms of the way it works with home educating parents and in some ways, this is even more important. What I have got in 314, it is the duty of a local authority to respect the right of parents to determine how their children are educated, perhaps it need to be said, but it seems to need to be said in a number of contexts. The other is as far as possible build positive and mutually respectful relationships with home educating families.

And support them if their children. Thirdly, to employ, fourthly, actually in this case, to employ staff to manage their elective home education functions who are suitably trained and experienced. And I think there is a big issue here around training which needs to be picked up. Training and educating of those staff. I would say there is research that shows what can be done and good practice, and there needs to be more that brought into practice. My final point here is about organising supportive and informal events, with a local authority.

Whether officials can beat home educating families and facilitate question and answer sessions between home educators and the officials. I think it is important they are not being judged by some official far away, purely on the basis of forms. That doesn't mean to say they should be meeting with every home educating family in the neighbourhood, but that actually, their representatives, the groups, I am told it is somewhere in the excess of 1,000 home educating groups around the country, who are in touch with a lot of the people who are home educating.

If I look at, 310,000 home educators, and if there are 1,000 of them, you can see they are fairly well in touch with the people they might represent. I'm looking for something that fits these two sides. Something a bit more about the support that can be expected. At that point expected, rather than in the wording of the bill at the moment, it is that the parents can request, and the local authority can decide whether or not it will provide that. But some reasonable list of support.

But also some reasonable expectation of the need to develop a relationship and to understand that, you know, this is really quite a different sort of area. We have got reference here to people with special educational needs, to gypsy and traveller people, and a whole range of different people who come under this umbrella that we are using at the moment of collective health education... Elective home education, rather, I beg your pardon. In continuation of the very positive remarks at the noble Lady, the Minister, has been saying today, she will make positive remarks about these two amendments at the implications of them.
17:20
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
My amendments so far have been trying not to put further administrative burdens on families who homeschool. It can be fast and it can be complicated. And it can be very difficult for them to retreat. However, my amendment 315 does follow one very nicely from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp's contribution, because at the moment there are huge financial pressures on local councils. We absolutely know that, local authorities are struggling. I am told that special educational needs and disability 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. Understanding of alternative education approaches, officers who might visit families might have, might be very unfamiliar with the sort of experience they see. They are unfamiliar with home education, unfamiliar with special educational needs, and may not know much child's development.

So they might make subjective and perhaps inconsistent judgement about the family they are seeing and penalising families who are supplying excellent education, simply because it does not look like school. And so, I would say that it is quite important that we understand local authorities have to exercise extremely difficult judgement and putting a further burden on families is really unwise. burden on families is really unwise.
17:22
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I very much support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. This is really how we can support work. I also support what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just. It is absolutely clear that some local authorities take any opportunity to tip homage getting parents into trying to get the children back into school. And what you want to be doing is encouraging parents, at all times, to approach local authorities and say " Hey, I need some help." It is perfectly normal thing to do, if you as a solicitor are sued by someone else, the first thing you do is find another solicitor.

Even if you are an expert, you go and ask for help, it should just be regarded as an ordinary thing, no one should take on something like home education without booking 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 I think is really important to make sure we have a strong relationship between local authorities and parents. My amendment 111 would require local authorities to explicitly take quote of the needs of the child and the educational preference of parents.

I think that is a very important part of the attitude that the local authority should be understanding of parents, and working with them. Not trying to impose their own formula. I will also speak to another amendments in this group by my noble friend, Lord Wei. And if I could start there with 390, 401, 402, 407, 419, 422, which address the financial problems faced by families. Around 6005 for the year, however, the entire burden of curricular costs, lost parental income, fools and the families themselves.

Amendment 390 would introduce tax relief for education expenses, amendment for one would grant rebates, when families home educate, due to a lack of two double school places. Amendment 402 would just cancel that to reflect the hassles are not drawing on local school budgets. 407 and 419 explore models for direct funding, through applications for individual families or cooperatives bringing a measure of parity to a system that otherwise risks confining high quality home education to be affluent.

Amendment 422 recognises another imbalance when the state compels parents to compile reports when attending overnight meetings, they should not do so entirely unpaid. While simultaneously providing the liberal teaching. Compensating that time, at least at the level of the minimum wage, is not only fair, it takes off the immense pressure that parents have, working in society's behalf. Amendment 396 presses the government to fund independent research and home education practice. It is striking how much policy in this area proceeds on the assumption and anecdote, rather than the robust data.

What do successful autonomous learning look like across different family contexts? How do educational outcomes compare when you look beyond test metrics, to include well-being, creativity, and lifelong visits. Speaking with my own voice now, that is something I very much support. As the noble Baroness, the Minister, said, it is difficult to get a grip on how educators are doing just on incomplete exam statistics. To do some proper research would not only benefit the government's policies, but would enable the home education community becomes a self improving community and do better by their own children, which is a huge innovation for them.
17:27
17:28
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, there are three main themes that run through this group of amendments. The first of these relates to the practical support offered to home educating parents offered to home educating parents who request it. And I think that amendments such as 309 and 310 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, have merit in that basic clarity about what support -- In that they seek clarity about what support can be given, but the term appropriate support might be hard to guarantee.

Other amendments, as we have just heard, focus on very specific elements of support, such as amendment 309, A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, in relation to offering support in the language 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. And I think it would be very helpful to set out what the basic support would look like from local authorities which will be funded.

I hope very much the noble Baroness, the Minister, can cover this when she comes to respond. The second principle that emerges from this group is about the relationship between electively home educating families, the local authority. Something I know my noble friends, Lord Lucas and Lord Wei have been particularly concerned about. This is set out most competitively in amendment 314, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. And I think it is helpful to see the spirit of engagement electively home educated families would like to have with local authorities.

I am not quite sure, perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister has an answer, but I'm not sure how you legislate for relationships. But I think that 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 Finally, there are a series of amendments that would unlock more financial support for home educating families, including amendments for all one, for O2, 411, 413, 419, and four to two in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Wei.

The noble Baroness the Minister was clear in response to the last group about where the financial responsibility lies. With electively home educating parents and I sympathise with the Minister in finding the right balance here to making sure that any support that is making sure that any support that is offered, including any financial support is striking the right balance and is not interpreted as actively encouraging home education and that we are clear that school, for the vast majority of children is the best place to be.
17:32
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the Government, this Government is introducing the first of a duty on local authorities to provide support, specifically for home educating families. Whilst home educating families assume the full responsibility for the education of their child, local authorities can and should be a source of information and advice for parents. 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.

And we will be seeing more support form that should take in statutory guidance, all of this legislation to the past legislation I should say optimistically. But let me respond to some of the points that have been raised in this concerning support duty and access towards facilities for home educators, turning first to those amendments that focus on the operation of the support duty and relationships between local authorities and home educating families, amendments 309, 309 a, zero 10, 311, 313, 13 A, 314 and 315.

Amendments 309 and 310 tabled by Mike Noble Friend Baroness Whitaker would require local authorities to provide support to families irrespective of whether they choose to access it. And I do have sympathy with the points made by Noble Friend about some of the very vulnerable children who may be receiving home education. I think 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 suitable education for them.

The other issue with this is this would also remove local authority discretion as to the nature of the support provided. And, of course, it would mean that many home educating families who would prefer to have a choice as to whether or not 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 or not they choose to access it. Amendment 3098 tabled by the noble Baroness would require support to be provided in a language that a parent understands language that a parent understands language that a parent understands Will have this in regard to each individual request from parents and this would include consideration of accessibility through use of languages other than English where necessary.

And this aligns with local authorities compliance with the public sector duty to consider diverse needs of different individuals within their community. Turning to amendment 311 and 313 a table by the Noble Lord locus, 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. We do not believe this amendment is necessary and we would already expect local authorities to take these factors into account when offering advice as part of the support duty.

Amendment 3138p as to seeking to introduce the best interest consideration in regards to the exception of certain children from the benefits of the support duty, specifically those children that have been exempt because they have secured additional learning provision or other provision as set out in the additional learning needs and educational tribunal Wales act of 2018. The children exempt from the support duty, as set out in full 363 of the bill are exempt in order to avoid the duplication of support from local authorities.

For instance, a child who receives alternative provision by the local authority would already be in The local authority. Including a best interest test to the process, specifically related to children subject to Welsh additional 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 divided by local authorities. Turning to amendment 13 tabled by the Noble Lord amendments 408 and 412 tabled by the Noble Lord and four to succeed tabled by the Noble Lord Monaghan, these amendments would give a right of access to a range of services, facilities, and other advantages to home educated children.

My Lords, advantages such as access to facilities and extracurricular provision are specific to school attendance. If schools wish to access these this remains available for the child. When a child has an education healthcare plan, most parents will have the choice to make suitable alternative arrangements for those listed in it, for example most parents can choose to home educate rather than take advantage of the special educational provisions secured by the local authority. It is right that when alternative arrangements have chosen and made the local authority is released from their duty to secure the provision for the child.

Local authorities will still have a duty to check the suitability of home education and the education health and care plan. If, at any point, the local authority which considers the are no longer suited it should intervene to support the child by taking appropriate action. In relation to requiring access to venues for taking public exams, I acknowledge that this is an issue but, as we that this is an issue but, as we have already heard, it is of concern both to noble Lords and to parents.

Turning to amendments 312 tabled by the Noble Lord locus and 383 and four to six tabled by the Noble Lord way, these amendments have this focus on access to examination of home educated children. Amendment 312 would place a duty on local authorities to secure an exam centre within a reasonable distance the children eligible for inclusion or not on school registers. Amendment three entry would place a duty on the Secretary of State to provide clarity of exam fee support and access to past exam papers for home educated children as compared to children attending men schools.

This would oblige councils to let home educated children sit exams on their premises. There who choose to home educate to assume full responsibility for planning better access examinations, but the drunk Council for qualifications website provides information on the nearest exam centres and parents can ask centres to accommodate their child. Home educated students can, as I have already said, access past exam papers to support exam preparation. I recognise the noble Lords concerns and appreciate his willingness to discuss this in more detail during discuss this in more detail during the meeting in July.

And I think it is certainly possible for us to think about without placing the type of requirement on local authorities suggested by these amendments to think about how we could support parents in finding access to exam centres and the way in which noble Lords have talked about them. With regards to amendment for 26 as was stated, if a private school wishes to support a private candidate, that is a choice for the schools management. It is not for Government to micromanage the operations of private enterprises in the way suggested.

Turning to amendment 314 tabled by the Noble Lord crisp, this would place a duty on local authorities to build and maintain positive relationships with home educated families, including through events and ensure that staff have appropriate training and experience. I think as the Noble Lady Baroness Barran has already identified it is quite difficult for Government to legislate for good relationships, but I can issue at 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 the Noble Lord, and others concerned by reports that 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 the 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 Lady Baroness Jones would actually prohibit the commencement of the school attendance movement order proceedings if the parent has requested support. Whilst we welcome local authorities support, allowing a request for support to hold legal action even when the education provider is plainly unsuitable, would create a system open to abuse.

Delaying necessary intervention and potentially allowing children to be in prolonged unsuitable education. Turning to amendment three unsuitable education. Turning to amendment 390, 401, 402, for a seven, 411, 419 and 422, tabled by the Noble Lord way, these amendments seek to provide financial incentives or reimbursements, for instance in the form of taxbreaks for home educating families. Whilst 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 there are the financial responsibility for doing so because they state fund in place is available for those children.

So, on the specifics, turning to amendment, sorry, turning to amendment 396 tabled by the Noble Lord, this amendment 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 on 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 that began in autumn 2022 stop it will be strengthened through improved data quality and by the statutory provisions for sharing data with the Secretary of State when the build measures come into force.

Aggregate data shall be published on an annual basis, subject to appropriate data protection protocols. This, of course, would support the carrying out of some of the research that noble Lords have identified into the nature and the success of home education. Turning finally to amendment for 10 tabled by the Noble Lord, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish a public broadcast service which provides curriculum outlined educational content for home educating families. As noble Lords are aware, there are already a wide range of education resources which home educating families can access, both paid for and free of charge and I am not sure, it would either be a reasonable spending of taxpayer money, or a legitimate use to develop the TV station the way that the Noble Lord has asked for.

I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and further information to noble Lords and I hope that they will therefore feel able to withdraw their amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I pick her briefly on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I pick her briefly on the question of exam centres for educating children? The noble educating children? The noble Baroness Lady Barran was kind enough Baroness Lady Barran was kind enough in early 24 to allow me to start exploring what was required to reverse the trend we have seen for many years of a reduction in the many years of a reduction in the availability of exam centres. This was rudely interrupted in July, was rudely interrupted in July, sadly, for us, but it was clear to sadly, for us, but it was clear to me that there was a lack of goodwill and we have a collection of organisations, about half a dozen of them, each of whom has set some individual requirements and ways of individual requirements and ways of looking at things that just do not looking at things that just do not looking at things that just do not And make it difficult for us all to continue the provision, with the human rights commission, as said, human rights commission, as said, because one of the great difficult things, if you allow any outside candidates, you have to admit all outside candidates, and some may require particular provision in separate rooms, and if you haven't got that and don't know where to provided come and haven't got the budget understaffing, you say we cannot do this because we don't have the exceptional circumstances.

So it is getting people together and saying we have an objective. We want home educated children to have reasonable access to exam centres. Please sit down together, sort out your differences. And they would, because it is perfectly possible, it just requires a series of small compromises.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the... I am not convinced

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the... I am not convinced the Equality and Human Rights Commission have difficulties in the Commission have difficulties in the way the noble Lord outline, but I think his point in that we can make progress on this were there to be progress on this were there to be some brokering off arrangements and that is something I would be willing that is something I would be willing to think further about, in terms of access to examinations and consideration of how to overcome some of the issues that might be
17:47
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
considered. I would be willing to We appreciate the Minister's sympathetic response, perhaps I could discuss with her later some aspects to the approach to marginalised parents, but meanwhile,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to withdraw amendment 309. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 309, A, Baroness Rock no, Amendment 309, A, Baroness Rock no, not moved. 310, Baroness Whitaker, not moved. 310, Baroness Whitaker, not moved. 310, Baroness Whitaker, not believed? 311, Lord Lucas, and 312, also Lord Lucas. 313, Lord Crisp. Not moved. 313, A, Lord Crisp. Not moved. 313, A, Lord Lucas.

314, Lord Crisp, also not moved. 315, Baroness Jones, not moved. 315, Baroness Jones, not moved. 315, Baroness Jones, not moved. 316, Lord Storey, not moved. 317, Lord Lucas, not moved. And 318, 317, Lord Lucas, not moved. And 318, 317, Lord Lucas, not moved. And 318, Lord Wei, not moved. 319 withdrawn, 320, Lord Wei, not moved. And 321, 320, Lord Wei, not moved. And 321, also the name of Lord Wei, add three also the name of Lord Wei, add three to two, the name of Lord Wei, 323, not moved.

And three to four, Lord not moved. And three to four, Lord Wei, not moved. And three to -- And 325 and 326, not moved. 327, withdrawn, 328, Lord Wei, not moved, also 329, and 330, the name of Lord Wei, not moved. Then we come to clause 31, the question is that clause 31 stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

After clause 31, amendment 331, Lord Storey, not moved. 332 and 333 withdrawn. Then we moved to 333 Then we moved to 333ZA, Lord Hampton.
17:50
None Portrait AMDT: 333ZA Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-

I rise to speak to the rather dramatically numbered amendment 333 ZA in my name and rather blatantly declare an interest in a state secondary school teacher. I'd also in the past, I worked as a private cricket coach, which I think is quite relevant here. I would also like to acknowledge the help of E debt in this and bring it to my attention. In UK legislation, individuals barred with working with children can still operate as private tutors when hired directly by a parent.

This is due to the private arrangement exemption, schedule four of the safeguarding vulnerable groups act, 2006, as a result, there is no legal requirement for such tutors to undergo an enhanced DBS check, nor is there a legal mechanism to prevent someone on the list from offering and delivering tuition to children. This is also true of those that have been struck off the teaching, but struck off by the teaching regulation agency. That loophole presents a significant increase in relevant safeguarding risk especially in the context of rising private tuition.

Especially with private online platforms. The exemption applies even when tuition is paid, unsupervised, or delivered online. Research published by the Sutton Trust suggested that 30% of 11-16-year-olds in the UK had received private tuition at some point and that includes both of my children. It never occurred to me to ask for DBS. 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. At this is not commonly known. Speaking in September last year, children's Commissioner said anybody who is working one-to-one with a child and as a tutor should have a DBS criminal record check. It is an absolute basic minimum. And her predecessor, who I see sadly is not in her place, the noble Baroness, Baroness Longfield, 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, mild, were put private tutors on the same legal footing as freelance coaches and mainstream teachers. It would close a bizarre safety loophole, and will contribute to children's lives being made safer. With that, I beg to move.
17:54
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed, a clause 31, insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. I am sorry to raise this issue

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry to raise this issue under, I think, an amendment from Lord Wei, which Lord Lucas spoke about. I was not aware of the about. I was not aware of the situation until this morning. And I was absolutely dumbfounded, I think was absolutely dumbfounded, I think is the phrase I want to use. We have rightly made our schools very safe places for our children, and Ofsted places for our children, and Ofsted inspections makes safeguarding one of the key things that they look at.

of the key things that they look at. So imagine the situation, and as we So imagine the situation, and as we have heard, about 30% of children have heard, about 30% of children aged 11-16/2 private tutoring, either in person or online, imagine either in person or online, imagine a situation in a school where a a situation in a school where a teacher has been dismissed from their position after being arrested for a serious child sex offence, for a serious child sex offence, might have even gone to prison if found guilty.

If they could do private tutoring, if they were employed by a parent. And there was no safeguarding taking place. And that surely cannot be right. This is not about criminalising parents who employ them, because adapted parents would be aware of them. It is about making sure ourselves that when we come, perhaps, to report stage, that perhaps after conversations have been had with the Minister, we might make sure this final loophole is sorted once and for all.
17:56
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has made a very clear case that providers of both online and in-person tuition services should be subject to the same safeguarding cheques as those providing tuition in person. And in particular, with relation to the gap and commit legislation that the outlined. And of course, I agree completely with the importance of safety for children, who receive private tuition, and agreed that those who have been barred from teaching should not be able to offer their services legally, directly to parents.

I do however did have a slight hairshirt in relation to this issue because I think is ultimately responsible for checking out the tuition services that their children receive. And of course, having DBS receive. And of course, having DBS check and can contribute, but is by no means sufficient, and when it comes to sex offenders, we are the vast majority of those do not get reported to police and be not get a criminal record and their behaviour would not appear on a DBS check.

There is a balance to be struck by, in no way, diluted the responsibility of parents, while closing the loophole, as the noble Lord suggests.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She might not be aware that not all agencies who employ tutors

**** Possible New Speaker ****

actually carry out checks. I was aware of that. But I think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was aware of that. But I think my point regarding the clarity that my point regarding the clarity that parents need to think very carefully about who their child spends time with still stands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

with still stands. Just to respond, the parents might not have the wherewithal to might not have the wherewithal to know how to go about checking as they would assume, obviously they would assume, obviously wrongly, that if they employed a tutor from an agency, they would tutor from an agency, they would expect that tutor to have been cleared, and if it was not from an agency, it was direct, they would agency, it was direct, they would assume that because they were a teacher, they would have done
17:58
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

safeguarding cheques. Can I frankly noble Lord, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I frankly noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for initiating such an important debate which has already had an effect by ensuring more members of your Lordships house are members of your Lordships house are aware of this issue. The noble Lord amendment pondered a review of safeguarding practices in private tuition, including background checks on tutors and the impact of activities defined as regulated activity related to children on private tuition settings. This is an important issue and is recognised as such by the government.

Which is why we have already acted to improve the safety of children in private tuition along with the school settings sector. The government has published safeguarding for e- learning tutors and for local authorities to act when there are safeguarding concerns. It is also widening the scope of activity, to disclose those who work frequently with children in supervised roles. This change will mean that employers that engage with tutors in supervised roles can check if a person is on the children's barred list, because the DBS considers them to pose a risk of harm to children.

The government is also taking action to ensure that all of those working in regulated activity with children and can access enhancements children barbless cheques, teacher in a school or private tuition. 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 September 21 and I hope the noble Lord will actively participate in this consultation. I want to take this opportunity to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, with regards to online DBS checks. My Lords, anyone who teaches, trains, instructs, supervises or cares for children unsupervised, and A1 regular basis, is considered to be working in a regulated activity. This includes the majority of private tutors, but operate in person or online in regulated activity, these are eligible for an enhanced DBS check, with a check of the barred list, if working as part of the tutoring organisation, or engaged with agency.

We are looking to extend this access to those who are self-employed. It is important to note this is a criminal offence for a barred individual to work in a related activity. We have published safeguarding guidance for parents on using after-school clubs, tuition and community activities, and would encourage them to use this for in person and all my tutoring they are using. -- And online tutoring they are using. We take this as a very important area. We welcome the debate and I hope that when we see the evidence, from the call for evidence, we will be collectively able to move forward.

The reasons I have outlined, would kindly ask the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, to withdraw his amendment.
18:01
18:02
None Portrait AMDT: 333A Lord Hacking (Labour)
-

repentance because this amendment is too far of an overreach and I regret drafting but also at earlier stages of the bill from clause 31 I did find it necessary to go to amendment 233 a, identifying and I do not think it necessary to seek and take out of the builder provisions going over not too were three pages and I did that because concerning clause 31 there was far too much information and, indeed, it was far too much of an obligation on the local council, I think it is 13 pieces of requirement that they are also being compelled to provide as part of the process.

But this is an overreach on my part and I apologise that it is very important, I suggest that the local council has to issue school attendance orders as I have mentioned there is a great worry mentioned there is a great worry about the number of children that think it is I think it is 10,000 I think is the figure that was given that are not having any education at all and therefore local authorities should be diligent to find where these children are and issue the necessary number of school attendance orders, so I support clause 32, right down to page 66 at the top of page 66 where there is a requirement of 15 for the recipient on the school attendance order to provide the information within 15 days.

That is a very tight timetable for ordinary citizens, not familiar to all receiving an attendance order, rather a scary experience to receive it and I do suggest that it should be a longer period, but that is the only revision I am now seeking under this amendment. seeking under this amendment.
18:05
18:05
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
intended to withdraw this amendment therefore I withdraw this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have several

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. The, my amendments in this group. The, my Noble Friend Lord where is concerned that these that we are getting the balance right from the state and the balance right from the state and the family quite honestly I agree with family quite honestly I agree with him in this area, it is the parents that have the primary responsibility that have the primary responsibility in the best interest of their child, the intervention by the state should only be justified in exceptional circumstances and must be proportionate.

Closer to two as drafted my Noble Friend risk tipping drafted my Noble Friend risk tipping that balance the wrong way. Families already tell us that school already tell us that school attendance causes stress, anxiety, the sense of powerlessness and one parent said they were. To attend the parent said they were. To attend the school against her will wear her needs were not going to be met and felt trapped and fearful for our daughters safety and another described the child with severe anxiety, seizures, who thrived only when withdrawn from school and many home education is not an elective but a response to systemic failures and I am sure the Government is aware of that and what MS the system is at a moment and many of the parents are doing so in response to a less than ideal system.

I know that we tried to improve the system, I know this Government is going to have another go and it is not easy but we must expect a continued flow of parents choosing to look after their own child because the state is not doing a good enough job. We are humble enough to recognise that deserves our support and not continual harassment. Amendment 334 would change the duty on local authorities to serve a notice to mayor. I think that in the context of all the other discretion that local authorities have it would be sensible to allow them to say that issuing a notice it would be particularly in such circumstances it would do more harm than good to allow them to focus on the child's welfare or focus and force them down that path.

Amendment 335 requires that all 11 supporters offered before issuing such a notice and this goes back to an earlier amendment, the first reaction of the local authority ought to be is support possible here, can we support with this and make this a success as well as may be schools that are of the art to come at this with support and family 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 and one parent told us we asked for counselling and support what we got was school attendance order making the child's anxiety worse.

Amendment 338 asks what are the circumstances in which a best interest test would be applied? Amendment 339 and 340 asks why just section 47 investigation is the trigger and not a consideration of without that investigation has any relevance and many are entirely unconnected to suitability of the family for home education. Amendment 341 is trying to look at the question of how is the local authority in a position to judge the best interests? What resources have they got that enables them to do this? And why should that decision by the local authority in the child's best interest be something that it is so hard for a parent to challenge? And if it is not to be hard to challenge, what should the hard to challenge, what should the route speak? Amendment 343, one 345, concerned with school attendance order, the threat of a school attendance order should not be a penalty for an infraction, that is something that the Government intend to put in the guidance, but it is really important that parents should understand that they are being judged by reasonable standards and they are allowed to make ordinary mistakes without fearing.

mistakes without fearing.
18:11
18:12
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Truth be known I struggled with the whole issue of attendance orders and yes, of course, we want as many and yes, of course, we want as many of our children to be regular attendance at school or in education settings. When they are not at school they are not learning. Apparently. However, there are also some reasons and amendments in this bill I think that highlight particular groups of children and I think it has just been raised, the issue of bullying in school can have a huge effect on children, where they are just literally petrified to go to school and it becomes a vicious circle because then the local authority takes action and says all you have to we can have children that can have special educational needs and I had a pupil who had, I did not believe this, he hadn't absolute about school attendance.

His mother who was a hospital nurse had to drag him to school every day and the whole thing was just a constant battle. So, I think we have got to think very carefully about that and there are certain groups of people who are waiving the stick of attendance that is not the right approach and we have to look at the ways of increasing the school attendance and we have to be mindful of the situation we are in. I always believed that parents who took their children on holiday during school time were wrong but sometimes I reflected that quality time might actually have with their parents and often that is more important, that was hugely beneficial for them as a family because they learn so much as well.

I hope we think of this through very carefully before we enact this at reform stage. enact this at reform stage.
18:15
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this group includes a series of amendments and several from my Noble Friends Lord Lucas and Lord Wei about the government's proposed approach to school attendance orders. And his majesties loyal opposition believes that it is important that local authorities are able to hold parents to account and not either ensuring that their child attends school daily or are providing a suitable education at home. And I appreciate that some of the concerns that this could be seen as punitive by some families, but, equally, if exceptions are introduced to the legislation I would worry that it creates a different risk that there is inconsistent practice which is perceived to be unfair and could well be challenged in the courts.

If I may, I think that the group that the Noble Lord story who referred to actually in the next group of amendments I appreciate so many amendments today it is hard to keep amendments today it is hard to keep In relation to the risk of creating inconsistencies in the application of the legislation, I am thinking, for example, amendments such as 334 through 337, in the names of my noble friend, Lord Lucas and Lord Jones of most come, and amendment 372-374, 392, in the name of my noble friend, Lord Wei.

So I understand the majority of amendments in this report probing amendments, help noble Baroness, the Minister and reassure those noble Lords who have tabled them that they are not necessary, and I would be interested whether she agreed with me as to whether they potentially create a different risk. And on these benches, we believe that clause 32 and clause 35 should stand as part of the bill. With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking's revised amendment, shortened amendment, I would just say that I think there is an important balance to be struck.

And of course, one can argue about timing and the number of days, but it is incredibly important, if the child is not getting any education, that that is addressed in the most timely way possible.
18:18
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
To continue where the noble Lady finished, a child receiving unsuitable education for as little as a day could be detrimental for that child's educational development. The measures in this bill seeks to make this process more efficient, minimising time a child may be receiving unsuitable education. We have heard many species that highlights the rights of parents to educate their children, how they wish. Parental choice is important but is an crucial -- But it is crucial to remember rights, responsibilities, parents have a responsibility to secure education for their children.

Where parents fail in this responsibility, there must be a consequence for Parysatis with route or education to the child. Amendments to this group focused on the school attendance order process, and I want to turn first to address the noble Lord, Lord Lucas' amendment, standing as part of this bill. We do 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 unsuitable education. Clause 32 also allows local authorities to require school attendance, where a child is subject to chart protection plans or whether school is deemed to be the child's best interests. This is a vital safeguard. Our most vulnerable children. As part of school attendance order proceedings, local authorities will be empowered to request a visit the child inside their home, so I can fully consider the environment in which health education is being provided.

Parents have the right to refuse local authorities requests, if access is not given, then this will be a relevant factor for the local authority to consider when deciding whether to serve in order. The clause strengthens the current system, by introducing timelines to making force and more efficient, -- Making enforcement more efficient. It also allows parents convicted of breaching the 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 finds, with attendance fines, will further incentivise parents to ensure that children are registered at and continue to be registered at the named school.

Turning to amendments 333, A, tabled by my noble friend, Lord Hacking, and 344, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, amendment 344 mix issue of the notice when a child is not receiving suitable education or when the home education is not in the best interest of an eligible child but discretionary act for local authorities, and I will not respond, I was going to come and amendment 333, A, given what my noble friend 333, A, given what my noble friend has said.

-- I was going to comment on amendment 333. It ensures there is definitive action when a local authority as reasons to believe that home education is not suitable, or not in the best interest of an eligible child. Turning to amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this amendment seeks to require that support must be offered before a preliminary notice can be issued. In cases where the concerns of 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 do appreciate the noble Lord is concerned a formal notice could be daunting from a parent to receive. We will consider what further guidance could be issued to parents and local authority does part of the implementation of these measures to ensure they can engage confidently with the process. I turned to amendments 338341, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that seek to prevent local authorities from considering whether it would be ineligible child's best interests for them to receive education, by regular school attendance, as part of the preliminary notice for school attendance orders.

I think it is important to explain the reasoning behind the best interest test in this context. Currently, local authorities have no records to require a child on a child protection plan, or inquiry, to attend school, unless they can identify the child is receiving unsuitable education. The best interest tests requires local authority to take action, when they identify children subject to child protection inquiry is more -- Inquiries, with plans, when attending school, regardless of education being provided at home, being considered suitable.

Statutory guidance working together to safeguard children provides clarity, making best interest decisions, what that means, it will be further updated as part of the implementation of these measures. Turning to amendments 339 and 340, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that seek to remove or limit the ability to local authority to issue a preliminary notice when a child is subject to an active section 47 child protection inquiry. Local authorities will only be able to issue a preliminary notice under the sub lot, if it appears to them that a child is not regularly attending a school and it would be in the child's best interest to do so.

A preliminary notice will not automatically result in a school attendance order. It is also important to remember that these inquiries take place because section 47 of the Children Act and 89 puts Judy McGrath authority to make inquiries where it considers a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm. -- But a duty on local authorities. It should not be the case that section 47 inquiries the case that section 47 inquiries are initiated based purely on the factor parents home educating.

As we are clear that home education is not, in itself, and inherit 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 and determine whether their interests would be better served by regularly attending school. I now turn to amendments 342 and 346, tabled in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness, Lydia Jones, and amendment 336, 347, 343, 344, 347, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It will seek to remove the ability of local authorities, to issue a preliminary notice, when a parent is not provided information, or has provided incorrect information, for children not in school register.

This power is discretionary, local heritage should not normally issue a preliminary notice in response to a genuine error by a parent, but instead, continue informal inquiries. However, without consequence on parents for not providing required information, the duty on parents provide information would effectively be redundant. If this duty on parents is necessary to ensure local authorities have the required information to ensure that education is suitable and safe. Local authorities must act promptly, when it appeared action should be taken, so there is no delay in providing appropriate support to children who need it.

The timeframe in the school attendance order process strike the right balance between urgency and operational practicality. Removing them could lead to inconsistent at a slower responses in local authorities, resulting in children spending more time in unsuitable education. I recognise that amendment 365, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has been not moved. I also would like to suggest that the set of amendments in this group, all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which concern penalties for parents, in range of different circumstances, perhaps I would best deal with by writing to noble Lords with some assurances around each of those amendments, rather than by going through all of them in detail.

During the course of this debate. And finally, I turned to address the noble Lady Baroness Jones' amendment which seeks to remove clause 35 from the built-up clause 35 introduces schedule two, which makes consequential amendments to existing legislation, so the new school attendance order process follicle authorities in England and Wales is reflected in the Children Act 1989, Information. It is necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the process and I move this clause stand as part of the bill.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments and I move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 32 and 35 stand part of the bill. I am very grateful. I am grateful, as ever, for the noble Baroness' responses, but our be Baroness' responses, but our be grateful if you could write to me between now and report, for really between now and report, for really giving me a clearer idea of what the parental response will be when, say, parental response will be when, say, faced with the local authority, that the parents consider to be serious for their child, how do they appeal it? What is the process of taking it? What is the process of taking that? Assuming the local authorities got it wrong, what is the full process which results in parents process which results in parents being able to get to help the local authority to understand the reality authority to understand the reality of their child's circumstances and where their best interests really where their best interests really lie.

I have, with all the help being given, still failed to get a grip on given, still failed to get a grip on what the process will feel like and I would love to share that with home educators.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just clarify that the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just clarify that the noble Lord is clear that the best interest requirement Renesse to those cases where children are subject to child where children are subject to child

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protection inquiries or plans. Yes, but it is only about half of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, but it is only about half of section 47 where you would judge that is a real problem. I can understand why and I accept what the understand why and I accept what the government is saying about the lead government is saying about the lead not to find the children you are not covering that you need to be covering, it means children going covering, it means children going through the system, where the dangers are not absolute. But, if say, the child has deep school say, the child has deep school anxiety, or is really being bullied at the school has taken against at the school has taken against them.

Other reason that they have a horrid experience of it, and the local authority says go back in, local authority says go back in, what is the experience of the parent in appealing that. I just don't have a grip of the details of the system,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I would like to have. I will write about that specific point. Provided the noble Lord, Lord
18:29
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Provided the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, didn't want to make any more interventions, that I will take this opportunity to close this debate. My opportunity to close this debate. My lord, your Lordships heard that I am repenting and pleading guilty to overreach. I didn't actually move this amendment. But I felt it was right that there are an enormous number of amendments listed after 33A, and I thought it was right that all members of the House should have an opportunity to clear any of the amendments, listed in this grouping.

amendments, listed in this grouping. But having said that, I have no hesitation in withdrawing this amendment, and for thanking my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend, the minister, for her very careful and adequate replies. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments 334 and 335 unblock, Lord Amendments 334 and 335 unblock, Lord Lucas, not moved. Amendments 336 and Lucas, not moved. Amendments 336 and 337. Not moved. Thank you. Amendments 338-341 unblock, Lord Amendments 338-341 unblock, Lord Amendments 338-341 unblock, Lord Lucas cannot meet? --, not moved? - -, not moved? 332342, not moved.

-, not moved? 332342, not moved. 343, 345 Lord Lucas, not moved. Sorry, should have said 3432 not moved. Amendment 346, Baroness moved. Amendment 346, Baroness That brings us to the next group in clause 32 amendment 348.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 32 amendment 348. My Lords, I think this is another
18:31
18:32
18:33
18:33
18:35
18:36
18:37
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, as we continue to debate these attendance orders we must never lose sight of a child at the heart of this, a child gets one chance at an education and that is why our process has been stacked swiftly, decisively, and in the best interest of the child. If I turn in this group to speak to amendments 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 358, 316, 363, 367, in the name of the Noble Lord locus and amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness Jones of Boscombe these amendments look to remove the school attendance order to be served.

This seeks to remove the entire order section and I accept that might not be clear as the purpose or intention of the Noble Lord locus, so let me move on to amendment 349, with the local authority serving an order on the parents and children that historically have been subject to section 47 child protection inquiry plan, even if this is no longer the case that the child is receiving a suitable education, it would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve in these situations, if a section 47 has concluded and not resulted in this plan, the parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child's best interest if the notice was also issued and the grants that the local authority was not the suitability of education the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable, amendment 350 would require that local authorities only consider the major educational cities used by a child and amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to service the quarter, settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authorities suitability assessment.

Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education and it is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action. Turning to amendment 352 hope the Noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in 436 to know that the wording in 436L of this bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries as part of the school attendance order process and amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide full reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued and they are already subject to public law duties and this includes providing these decisions statutory guidance will ensure that they give clear advice on these matters and a man with 358, 363 and 367 prevent a order from being in force or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in that jurisdiction and this would be a significant local impairment could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily or claim to have done so and therefore 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 buried or revoked should they move school or demonstrate a suitable education is to be provided outside of school. Amendment 3626 to ensure that a parent has asked that a private school is named in the attendance order that the order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable and the intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills of their financial circumstances changing.

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. Now, turning to 356 and 359 which seeks to remove timelines on the process I understand the noble Lords intention behind these amendments is to probe whether sufficient time is therefore informing the school it is to be named in the school attendance order and I can reassure noble Lords that it is section 436L of the Noble bill in the school nomination notice in a school that it intends to name in an order.

The school disagrees with the order it is 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers for direction. I turn to amendments 34936 to a table by the Noble Lord story. These amendments seek to provide a school attendance order being issued to any child that has an education health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance was eligible for educational needs or support. All children deserve a suitable education, school attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children and it would not be practical to remove that option for local authorities for particular children limiting the causes of action to a child education.

The local authority should ensure school names in an order is right for the needs of the child in question and we recognise such as emotionally based school avoidance and our guidance is clear that school should work with the child and their family And build strong, trusting relationships. Turning to amendment 261 table by the Noble Lord and amendment 367 tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Hacking which seeks to amend the process of revoking the school attendance order, amendment 36 forward require the local authority to establish a panel that includes home educating parents when considering the requests.

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 I cannot imagine that many parents want this kind of sensitive information shared amongst a jury of other parents. Amendment 3916 to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if the child has the right to potential through a school attendance order, the process afford sufficient opportunity to parents demonstrating that they are providing a suitable education, and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school.

Turning to amendments 367 and did I understand correctly, right, turning to amendment 368 tabled by my Noble Friend Lady Whitaker and 369 tabled by the Noble Lord that seeks to amend the maximum fine for a breach of school attendance order. I understand that the prospect of fines is worrying for parents, however a parent only runs the risk of a fine if they breach the order. The consequence for reaching a school attendance order must be brought in 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 finds. Turning to amendment 371 tabled by the Noble Lord Lucas this requires the court to consider the best interests of the court when sentencing them for breaching a school attendance order the court in England and will most also consider the impact on the child when determining sentences as relating to the European of European rights. We therefore have a series of amendments tabled by the Noble Lord that have not been addressed in the debate so far and on that basis I think as I did previously I will offer to write to the noble Lords to respond to those amendments and given the assurances I hope provided the noble Lords.

Wye that was a thoroughly satisfactory set of thoroughly satisfactory set of answers. As a geologic special that the man be withdrawn? The amendment the man be withdrawn? The amendment is, by Lee, withdrawn. Amendment 349. 349 Lord Storey, not moved. 349. 349 Lord Storey, not moved. Amendment 350 to 352, not moved. In clause 32 amendment 353, Lord Lucas. clause 32 amendment 353, Lord Lucas.
18:46
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
I think this is an amendment that I would largely prefer to wait for the Minister's reply and I have a particular interest in where the Government finds itself when it comes to visiting children at home and the way in which that should be done and the circumstances under A lot of what we have been discussing earlier is about producing a system for relationships between home educators and the local authority which most children get seen anyway in the course of activities in which local authorities are involved, get seen by professionals, get seen by people who are qualified to make judgements as to how a child is flourishing.

Anti-Flag if there seems to be a problem. -- And to flag if there seems to be a problem. I am confident the need to visit at home should be much reduced. But nonetheless, there will be circumstances where this seems to be necessary. And it also produces conflict. I would be really interested in the government's thoughts on how it is going to approach this, however the local authority deals with circumstances, where it feels it needs to see the child.

Or a parent who feels that their child will react extremely badly to this intrusion is able to have their voice heard. And the potential role for third parties, for instance, the family doctor, for those who still have one, in that process, to mediate. But for the rest of the amendments in this group responsible for, I look forward to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister's reply. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, page 66, line

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, page 66, line 42, leave out from beginning to end,
18:48
18:49
18:50
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the voice of a child is key in creating a supportive responsive and effective safeguarding and educational environment. I believe the best way for a local authority to ensure a child's education is both suitable and safe is to meet with the child in the child's home. We want to ensure 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 Lady, Baroness Barran has rightly suggested as 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 relating to educational 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 seeks to make changes to the ability for a local authority to request a visit in the home, 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 once again the amendments in this group, brought by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, beginning with amendments 406, might be suitable for me to write to noble Lords, about several of them, falling within the category defined as the end of the spectrum. And I hope I would be able to reassure noble Lords or identify why they would not be suitable to be carried forward.

I do think noble Lord, Lord Suri, makes a broader point in respect to amendment 417 in respect holidays, and I am sure this is something that we cannot solve here this evening, but I recognise the concerns parents have. But I will deal with the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Dealing first with amendment three factory, which moves local authorities how it 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 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 with the child. Without this, local authorities may not be able to form comprehensive view of whether the home environment is conducive to the child's education, but parents may 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.

Turning to amendments 354 and 355, which require a local authority 355, which require a local authority to obtain a court order to request a visit, to visit a child at home, to consider the child's reaction to persons in authority, when determining whether to serve a school attendance order. My Lords, a court order would be unnecessary, as the local authority will only be making a request, which parents have a right to refuse. The point about sensitivity, though, I can assure noble Lords that our statutory guidance will provide further status, to help local authorities sensitively conduct visits and we will issue a whether additional support is needed, such as training for local authority staff.

I hope I have assure noble Lords that the ability to request a visit is an important opportunity for the local authority but that these will be carried out sensitively, and if necessary, we will provide further guidance. We will provide further statutory guidance on how that should happen. But I will respond to Lord Wei's amendments in writing to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness's response to my
18:55
18:57
18:58
18:58
19:00
19:00
19:00
19:00
19:01
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
to children, particularly those with educational health plans and the use educational health plans and the use of School Attendance Order's. The noble Lord story if I understood correctly has argued these children should be excluded from the School should be excluded from the School Attendance Order regime through amendments from earlier groups, and amendments from earlier groups, and amendments 359, A, and 366, A. I amendments 359, A, and 366, A. I would say the same about introducing inconsistency into a system where already we have incredible already we have incredible variability about how School Attendance Order's are used.

I think Attendance Order's are used. I think Attendance Order's are used. I think when I've spoken to families who do have children with an educational health and care plan, and are considering educating those children at home, they have expressed at home, they have expressed concerns the local authority is sometimes particularly resistant to sometimes particularly resistant to that because of the financial costs sometimes related to the physical and medical therapies, the health therapies a child might need. I think it would be helpful if the Minister is able to comment on those fears.

Equally, clearly a child in receipt of an EHCP has more complicated educational needs. And I think it's entirely reasonable that a level of authority should consider that carefully. And ensure that parents are indeed able to deliver on their wish to support the child at home. In relation to amendments 360, I'm not sure what material difference it would make to the bill but may be the Minister will shed light.
19:03
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
As I've said previously, the School Attendance Order process is an existing process and absolutely essential in providing children in unsuitable education a route to one or regular attendance at school. To speak to these amendments in group 15, turning to 360 and 361 tabled by Lord Lucas, which seek to require a local authority to review rather than amend in educational health and care plan where the authority is required to serve an attendance order in respect to a child, and it does not specify the school.

If the local authority is serving the School Attendance Order then it has determined the child is not receiving a suitable education and the situation must be resolved. In this situation it is right the Education, Health and Care Plan is amended to name a school, and the School Attendance Order reflects this. This will enable the child to be enrolled in that school without delay. If the noble Lord is concerned parents won't have the opportunity to influence the school named in the order, and the health and care plan, I can assure 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 local authorities send parents a notice outlining the changes to the plan. Additionally, a child's parents can request a review of the plan at any point if they believe the school is not meeting their child's needs. Turning to amendments 366, tabled by Lord Lucas, this amendment would remove the rights to refer questions on School Attendance Orders in Wales to Welsh Ministers and delete the clause preserving the existing framework. Parents must have a right to appeal a local authority decision to refuse to revoke a School Attendance Order, regardless of whether the authorities 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 Plan already have this amended and the amendment would mean duplicate processes would be running concurrently, but 10 surely -- potentially resulting in -- potentially resulting in confusion. Turning to 359 and 366, A. All parents deserve suitable education Michael children, School Attendance Orders need to apply to all children and it wouldn't 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 a school named in an order is right for the child in question. We recognise 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. I hope on that basis that noble Lords will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feel able to withdraw their The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. 360 and 361, not move. Amendments 362, not moved. Amendments 363, Lord Lucas, not Amendments 363, Lord Lucas, not moved. Amendments 365, Lord Crisp, moved. Amendments 365, Lord Crisp, not moved. 366, not moved. 366, A, not moved. 366, not moved. 366, A, not moved. 366, not moved. 366, A, not moved. 367, not moved. 367, A, not moved. 367, not moved. 367, A, not moved. 368, not moved.

369, not not moved. 368, not moved. 369, not moved. 370, withdrawn. 371, not moved. The question is that clause moved. The question is that clause 32 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. 372, content". The contents have it. 372, not moved. In clause 70 -- the question is that clause 33 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. The question is that clause 34 stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendments 376, not moved. The question is that clause 35 stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 35, Amendment 378, Lord Wei. Not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will move formally to enable debate.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate. Amendment proposed, after clause 35 insert the new clause as 35 insert the new clause as
19:09
19:09
19:09
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Minister for Women and Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
I rise to speak to this amendment in group 16, which is about the right to home educate. Just to reiterate, and it feels right to be doing this at the end of this debate as well as at the start of it, parents have the right to educate their child in the way that best suits their needs. If that education is suitable. And this bill does not change that. But to speak to change that. But to speak to amendment 378 -- 370, A, in the event of a national emergency this would allow home education.

Parliament is sovereign, any law passed by a current Parliament can be changed or repealed by the future Parliament. However, existing legislation is clear. It is clear that most parents have the right to educate their child otherwise than at school, provided the education their child receives is both safe and suitable. This government supports that right. And I hope on that basis of reassurance, the noble Lord would feel able to withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendments 379 to 300 to six -- 326 Amendments 379 to 300 to six -- 326

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move the I beg to move the house I beg to move the house be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We We seem We seem to We seem to have We seem to have gone We seem to have gone awfully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We seem to have gone awfully quickly, so on that basis may I ask that we adjourn during pleasure for that we adjourn during pleasure for five minutes in order for all participants in the next part of participants in the next part of business to make their way to the chamber. So the house will resume at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

chamber. So the house will resume at As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary,
19:13
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions on Questions on the Questions on the statement Questions on the statement made
19:17
None Portrait Oral statement: Borders and Asylum
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions on the statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on borders and asylum.
19:17
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

borders and asylum. 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 across 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. In repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act it failed to effectively and prevent their policies to deter those who would attempt the crossing. One major policy the government has pursued the returns deal with France has yet to bear any results. The Home Secretary has stated that the government is moving faster than the Conservatives well with Rwanda stop obviously forgetting that the reason the Rwanda policy was delayed was because the Labour Party voted against it over 130 times.

What I do appreciate 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 timeframe in place? In the statement the Home Secretary stated that the government has 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 The Home Office data for the year ending June 2025 shows that enforcement returned, that is people who are subject to removal or deportation by the Home Office, the Voluntary returns, those people who are liable to be removed but chose to leave the UK before being deported, were 26,761.

It is the combination of these two figures that make up the 35,000 return claim. Clearly the vast majority of returns are therefore voluntary returns, not enforced deportation action by the Home Office. It is not highly misleading, is it not highly misleading the government to claim they have removed 35,000 people when in fact most of those left on their own accord and they have only removed 9,000 is it not highly misleading the government to claim they have removed 35,000 people when in fact most of those left on their own accord and they have only removed 9072 people themselves? The figures being used to mask the reality of a failure to get a grip of the crisis at the border, failure to smash the gangs, failure to close down all remaining asylum hotels.

The Home Secretary and I'm sure he will not fail to repeat this, made the point that the hotels were opened under the last government and that this government had been taking action to close them. Unfortunately what she omitted for from her statement was that the previous government was taking action to reduce the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels. From the peak of 56,000 in September 2023 we reduce that number to 29,585 in June 2024. But since this government has been in office that number has only increased.

It jumps to 38,079 in December of last year and as of 30 June stands at 32,059. That's 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 has not continued with that piece of closure, nor are they taking enough action to discern remove those who enter this country illegally.

The Home Secretary repeated the claims several times during his statement in the other place that the opposition has resisting and opposing the border security. Asylum and bill in this House. She even insinuated that we are attempting to slow the passage of the bill. I must say to the of the bill. I must say to the Minister I take issue with that characterisation. We have had three days of 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 the statement that the government will be proposing -- pausing refugee family reunion to tackle the large increase in the number of people applying to ring family members to the UK after a very short period. What we do resist however is the government opposition to many of our proposals.

Rather perhaps I should say previous opposition since much of what the Home Secretary proposed yesterday as orally been raised in this chamber by those of us on this benches. This morning the Home Secretary mentioned the number of students who arrive in the UK on student Visa. Then goes on to claim but then go on to claim asylum, stating that she wants to clampdown on this backdoor route. I agree which is why I tabled an amendment to the border security bill, amendment 193, which prevents any person from making an asylum claim more than one year after they have entered the UK.

This would prevent precisely that scenario from occurring stop this has yet to be debated but I'm sure the Minister will of course support that amendment and -- when we come to debated. One of the main announcements of the statement is the establishment of a new body to deal with asylum and claims. 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 with only administrative appeals made to the Home Office, or will it also deal with judicial appeals which are currently made to the asylum and chamber.

Secondly will the government now be supporting our further amendment 1382 the border security bill? Which prevents a person from appealing against a deportation order made under section 32 of the UK Borders Act. Finally Canon Minister confirm how these changes will be made and when? Will the government be bringing amendment to the border security bill at report in this House to implement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these new policies? We on these benches agree with the government that the
19:24
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
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 has so far failed to get a grip on the problem as a whole. There may be a glimmer of hope that a conference of policy will emerge from the content of the statement, so we will scrutinise carefully any plan which flows from the government statement the real solution lies in speeding up processing so those with no right to be here are swiftly returned, providing safe routes to claim asylum and ensuring 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 is 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 laws, and also what is we are told would be the reduction of the move on. 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 the crisis worse. Refugees are not at an equal starting point. They have been forced to leave their homes and families, often in grave danger. Family reunion is crucial for their settlement and integration. So what assessment has been made of the risk that tighter family reunion rules will push more families into the 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? 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 has the government got in mind for a identifying suitable candidates, and be, 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 we apparently know now will meet its first exchange of people at the end of this month. Can the Minister give us some idea as the timescale for expanding what looks like very small numbers will be issued at the beginning. Finally, what safeguards will ensure that the fast track appeals process proposed doesn't compromise fairness, or lead to more judicial reviews later? And refugees are entitled to be supported as well, it would be interesting to note what the government proposes is the manner in which that system will actually proceed.

actually proceed.
19:28
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to his Majesty's opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their initial questions. Let me start if I may with Lord Davies of Gower. First of all he makes the allegation that the government is responding because of the protests that have taken place around the country which are relatively small in number in August of this year. Can I reassure him that the government has a very strong plan to remove the mess that his government left the asylum seeker -- system, the hotel backlog, and the small boats crisis in, and the actions that we are taking part of a long-term plan which includes the immigration bill we will debate further tomorrow, to ensure 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 will just remind the noble Lord, it is the lowest number of votes in August for four years, this August. The issues that we are facing, well the noble Lord heckles from a sedentary position that is one month. We have been in office for 13 months now and we have taken action which I will come to which also relates to what Lord German has said. To establish a border command under the immigration bill, to put in new powers to tackle small boats which are going to be taking place shortly, scrap the wasteful Rwanda scheme that wasted £700 million of taxpayers money that his government had in place which removed, I think from memory to 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 and in speeding up asylum claims we are doing what we should be doing which is assessing people and determining who has asylum into doesn't. If he looks, he mentioned some figures in his contribution, there are 35,000 people who had no right to have abode in the United Kingdom who have been removed in the past 12 months which is up on his government performance.

A 28% increase in failed asylum seekers being removed. We have also had a 14% increase in foreign national offenders removed. We have also had an increase of 50% in the number of work raids -- illicit work raids undertaking to make sure we maintain standards in employment. He can't get away from the fact I'm afraid 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 With due respect to the noble Lord, I'm going to take -- I'm not going to take lessons from him on asylum immigration or small boats when his office at the record it did.

I have some information for him. He's asked about the new commission we are establishing. We will set out further details on that new commission in due course. We will ensure we clarify and put into the public domain the roles that commission will have. We will ensure that commission is paid for with existing departmental budget, so there's no extra cost to the taxpayer for that. And we will ensure that people have time to do rigourous training in decision- making and expertise to make decisions on appeal cases.

We do that to speed up the asylum appeal process, that led to the highest number of asylum backlog in the history of asylum backlog, under his government. We are trying to speed up those claims because ultimately we need to determine someone's right to abode in the United Kingdom under asylum, and if they don't have a right we need to remove them. Neither of which the previous government did to any effect. We are also, if I may say so, he mentioned the French scheme.

Noble Lords will know under the previous government no attempts were made to discuss with the French what the issue was on the beaches of France. With relation to small boats. No attempt at all. I'm sorry, the noble Lord again shakes his head, perhaps when he gets the opportunity he will write to me and tell me the agreements that were struck with the French on small boats on beaches. Because there were none. And because there were none we have had to pick that up, and over the course of the last 12 months we have negotiated with the French and we have a returns agreement in place.

That returns agreement is a pilot scheme, it has not yet removed people to the extent, but it is a pilot. We are monitoring that pilot, and in answer to Lord German we intend to remove and exchange the first individuals under that scheme in this month. I hope it will prove a benefit. And we have also, as the noble Lord knows because I tell him every time we have this discussion, we've had agreements with the French, the Belgians, the Dutch on 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 putting people to justice so we now have people before the courts for smuggling offences. There's going to be a difference between us, he believes in the Rwanda scheme, I don't. Ultimately it's about delivering on these issues. This government 13 months in is beginning to deliver. I thank Lord German for his welcome of some of the measures in the statement.

I say to him the border security demands, the asylum claims, the new powers in the bill, the pledges on hotels are all part of that, because he is right we need to make sure we speed up the asylum backlog that was left by the previous government. Those are matters that are ongoing at the moment, and we will continue to examine. 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.

And I hope that the issues I've mentioned to him around the new scheme which I mentioned in response to Lord Davies on the appeals board is good. I understand he has concerns and I recognise them, about the family removal issue. And I will say to him on that that we intend to ensure that at a date very shortly in the future we will bring forward Statutory Instruments that will end the family reunion issue on a temporary basis.

While we review the issues on family reunion for a longer period of time. We are doing that for a straightforward reason. The number of family reunions has increased quite dramatically. If I give the figures now, in 2015 to 2022 there were approximately 5,500 individuals granted under refugee family reunion each year, 5,500 over the seven years. In 2024 there were 19,709 individuals who arrived on this route, a 111% increase which is just not sustainable. We need to review that and work on it and take action accordingly.

What we are doing is, at a date very shortly we will lay a Statutory Instrument which will suspend the scheme and we will bring forward a revised scheme at a date in the future when we are able to do so. The suspension is temporary, while we undertake a full review. In the meantime he has asked a legitimate question, what do individuals who want to have family reunion do? As of now whenever the scheme comes into effect we will honour the family reunion applications to the date the scheme is suspended.

But we will also then be able to examine any further family reunion routes through other means on the normal route for family reunion that will take place. And we will bring forward in short order a revised scheme which I hope will address some of the issues that in my view do need to be tightened. So I say to all noble Lords, there is a common issue here and we should try and address it. That's what I'm trying to do with the proposals before the House today.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we move on to the 20 minutes protected time for backbenchers, I want to make clear this is 20 minutes for backbenchers
19:38
19:38
19:39
19:40
19:41
19:42
19:43
19:44
19:45
19:46
Lord Kirkham Portrait Lord Kirkham (Conservative)
-
-
former immigration minister in this country and say that I sympathise with anybody who has to conduct the business of immigration, particularly now in the pressures we have. I welcome very much most of what the government is now proposing and I do hope that it is possible for us to avoid the buildup of rhetoric which I have seen I am afraid from all quarters particularly the more extreme quarters in our country in recent months. I'm simply going to contain myself by asking two simple questions.

One is in relation to the question of family reunion. I think it's right to say that the majority of people who are coming by boat certainly and of course we have always had many people arriving to seek asylum in other ways, but those coming by boat particularly seemed to be very young men. In that sense I feel that the question of family reunion something where we can resist that rather more positively than different age groups and types. I wonder if the Minister would confirm really whether he thinks that particular part of the policy could be successful or not.

That's my first point. The second point is does the Minister agree with me that perhaps we need to make sure that the education of our officials is rather better in 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 criteria, the very narrow criteria which grant that asylum.

I think therefore percentages of people who are being granted at first instance has shot up enormously, certainly from my day, and I think it's too high. My own view is we need to make sure our officials are clear and fair, but that they do is stay with those criteria in their deliberations and decisions.
19:48
19:50
19:52
19:53
19:54
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble Baroness. When people say about leaving the ECHR I was wonder what rights they don't want. Is it the right to a free trial, the right to not have one slavery, the right not to have exploitation at work? I never quite sure which one of those rights people don't want. My forefathers and relatives in the past have fought hard to ensure that Decent rights at work, the right to a fair trial, the right to be free from slavery and all those things are embedded.

There is only a very small number of countries who have not signed up to the ECHR. That's not to say, which is why have said it, that there aren't tweaks and interpretations we can make and that's why we going to be looking at how we deal with article 8 in the first place. May I also take with you respect, some challenge to her idea that there are pull factors. People seeking asylum are featherbedded. I don't regard that to be the case. There is no benefit being claimed, there is no allowance of any meaningful level given to asylum seekers, and also we are trying to end some of those pull factors by tackling very hard illegal work which undercuts and undermines real people doing real jobs and businesses while people are being exploited and undermining legitimate businesses.

I understand, I say to the whole house it's a very complex multilayered issue. But the government is trying to on a range of mothers -- treasures -- mothers deal with this in a way that doesn't inflame the situation but looks at long-term positive solutions to bear down on what real genuine problems.
19:56
19:57
19:58
19:59
10:30
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 9) - part one
-

20:05
10:31
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 9) - part one
-

20:05
10:31
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 9) - part one
-

20:05
10:31
None Portrait Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - committee stage (day 9) - part one
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 2 House of Lords - 2 September House of Lords - 2 September 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page