Lords Chamber
Wednesday 10th September 2025
Skip to latest contribution
(began 3 hours, 38 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
11:07
Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – committee stage (day 10) - part one
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The children's The children's well-being The children's well-being and schools bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move at the house do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question its that the house
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question its that the house do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The After After close After close 55 After close 55 Amendment After close 55 Amendment 40 After close 55 Amendment 40 6B. After close 55 Amendment 40 6B.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After close 55 Amendment 40 6B. This is a simple amendment and if
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is a simple amendment and if I could preface my remarks by saying that, obviously, it is really important that a child is in school as often as possible because when
Legislation: Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill – committee stage (day 10) - part one
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The The children's The children's well-being The children's well-being and schools bill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move at the house do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question its that the house
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question its that the house do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The After After close After close 55 After close 55 Amendment After close 55 Amendment 40 After close 55 Amendment 40 6B. After close 55 Amendment 40 6B.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
After close 55 Amendment 40 6B. This is a simple amendment and if
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is a simple amendment and if I could preface my remarks by saying that, obviously, it is really important that a child is in school as often as possible because when
11:08
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
as often as possible because when they are not in school, they are not learning. But equally it has as important that they have quality time with their parents. The opportunity to be with both parents is hugely important and they learn so much from that opportunity. I was conscious as a very young teacher in Prescott that the three large faces of work had a closure where the whole factory closed down for a period of time so that the factory workers could have a holiday.
It often didn't coincide with the school holidays, and as a school, we were relaxed about that because we felt important that children should be with parents. That practice is very limiting now. There are not many factories nationwide. There are some in the North whether factory does close down for a set period and I just hope that the amendment is quite clear that we take licence of that fact in terms of attendance issues. In terms of amendment 449, it speaks for itself that all the information that is available is complete and accurate and consistent, and that information should always be available in terms of attendance to parents.
I move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 35, insert the new clause as printed in the Marshall list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the Marshall list. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord story and give a nod to his amendment. I rise to speak to my amendment 499 in this group. The purpose of which is incredibly clear, and that is this. Every child
It often didn't coincide with the school holidays, and as a school, we were relaxed about that because we felt important that children should be with parents. That practice is very limiting now. There are not many factories nationwide. There are some in the North whether factory does close down for a set period and I just hope that the amendment is quite clear that we take licence of that fact in terms of attendance issues. In terms of amendment 449, it speaks for itself that all the information that is available is complete and accurate and consistent, and that information should always be available in terms of attendance to parents.
I move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed after clause 35, insert the new clause as printed in the Marshall list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
in the Marshall list. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord story and give a nod to his amendment. I rise to speak to my amendment 499 in this group. The purpose of which is incredibly clear, and that is this. Every child
11:10
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
clear, and that is this. Every child is entitled to an excellent education. But that doesn't mean that every child should receive the same education, the same provision. The great joy of being born human is that we are born with bright, beautiful diversity from entering this human world. The problem with the bell is currently set out is that it doesn't fully appreciate this fact. All the difficulties that parents have in achieving that excellent provision for their children.
It makes sense that it is a criticism for anybody in the system. Teachers do tremendous work day in, day out, often in the most pressing and most difficult of circumstances. What this amendment is all about is to recognise the particularity of individual provision, not least for those children and young people who may be disabled or have special educational needs. The difficulty for parents in the process of trying to get DHCP. The cost often involved making it prohibitive, even if parents can go through that time-consuming and terribly intense process.
What this amendment simply asks is for the Secretary of State to produce an attendance code of practice. In that, to have it focused, support first. To understand the particularities of those circumstances and to not have a presumption that the school is necessarily the best and in some ways the only place for that excellent educational provision. As I say, this amendment speaks to children and young people and parents across the piece, but it is often those children who are disabled, who have special educational needs, and the parents of those children who find themselves at the sharpest and of this current situation.
That is why amendment 499 suggests an attendance code of practice. Support, focused, support first. I look forward to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister's response. I rise in support of amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise in support of amendment 499 tabled by my noble friend which would require the secretary of state to issue attendance code of to issue attendance code of practice. I believe this is a modest practice. I believe this is a modest proposal yet one that could transform how attendance is enforced and supported across England. I want
It makes sense that it is a criticism for anybody in the system. Teachers do tremendous work day in, day out, often in the most pressing and most difficult of circumstances. What this amendment is all about is to recognise the particularity of individual provision, not least for those children and young people who may be disabled or have special educational needs. The difficulty for parents in the process of trying to get DHCP. The cost often involved making it prohibitive, even if parents can go through that time-consuming and terribly intense process.
What this amendment simply asks is for the Secretary of State to produce an attendance code of practice. In that, to have it focused, support first. To understand the particularities of those circumstances and to not have a presumption that the school is necessarily the best and in some ways the only place for that excellent educational provision. As I say, this amendment speaks to children and young people and parents across the piece, but it is often those children who are disabled, who have special educational needs, and the parents of those children who find themselves at the sharpest and of this current situation.
That is why amendment 499 suggests an attendance code of practice. Support, focused, support first. I look forward to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister's response. I rise in support of amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise in support of amendment 499 tabled by my noble friend which would require the secretary of state to issue attendance code of to issue attendance code of practice. I believe this is a modest practice. I believe this is a modest proposal yet one that could transform how attendance is enforced and supported across England. I want
11:13
Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Wei (Conservative)
and supported across England. I want to 1st thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for stepping in for me last week when I was unable to be here in terms of my own absence. It was for a family wedding though it didn't pass comment on their own attendance record that day. In fact, when the Whip discovered a wedding was due to take place and I was sent to attend, business seemed to be swiftly rescheduled for Monday and Tuesday. In any case, I was unable to attend but I am grateful both to colleagues and staff of the house for their patience with me.
Many of my amendments have been submitted, some received with humour, some less so, but they all made the same point, that there is concern about the overreach of this bill and the heavy burden it will place on families, and already overstretched staff and systems. Talking about attendance, at present, practice across the country is wildly inconsistent. One parent reported that, in the local authority, they had a 75% chance being issued of a notice being satisfied. That authority issued 270 notices in a single year to just 320 home educated children.
In other areas, parents faced nothing like this. This doesn't seem like safeguarding to me but a postcode lottery and is indefensible. The current approach often defaults to enforcement and sanctions rather than genuinely seeking to understand and address the why of an attendance. Just over the summer, it was reported by Hampshire County Council that £1.6 million in revenue by finding families in the last few An increase of 22% from previous years. This can exacerbate stress experienced by families and failed to secure a child's education.
This amendment does not prevent enforcement, rather it sets clear parameters. We already have statutory codes and are working together. This thing -- frameworks bring clarity consistently. Why do we not have this for schools? Without a child, families are left in the dark well authorities very well the approach. Some parents describe the stress of being taken to court again and again. Some describe the threat of prison which does nothing to help the child. This is not proportionate enforcement, it is a system failure.
The contrast, were authorities have taken supportive approaches, outcomes improved. Parents felt listened to come a trusted and respected. Another family was given space when their child could not face a visit, and yet later the child chose to engage and proudly share her work. The child is now thriving at university for that's what good practice looks like. Partnership punishment. We mustn't forget those children for whom mainstream schooling has become unsafe or unbearable. Parents withdraw children because their mental health was deteriorating, sometimes dangerously so.
When child was self harming and recovered within a couple of months of home education. It is a rigid system that treats them as statistics to be reinforced against. This amendment would standardise enforcement so families are not punished for their postcode. It would prioritise support before coercion and give clarity to families and local authorities protecting the vulnerable, helping those officers who genuinely want to act fairly and provide guidance. It would restore it to legitimacy -- it would restore legitimacy interested public systems.
This is a long
**** Possible New Speaker ****
overdue measure. I commend it to the As the house will now, school attendance every day is absolutely attendance every day is absolutely critical for the success of pupils and during the pandemic, the and during the pandemic, the previous government introduced the collection of attendance data and
Many of my amendments have been submitted, some received with humour, some less so, but they all made the same point, that there is concern about the overreach of this bill and the heavy burden it will place on families, and already overstretched staff and systems. Talking about attendance, at present, practice across the country is wildly inconsistent. One parent reported that, in the local authority, they had a 75% chance being issued of a notice being satisfied. That authority issued 270 notices in a single year to just 320 home educated children.
In other areas, parents faced nothing like this. This doesn't seem like safeguarding to me but a postcode lottery and is indefensible. The current approach often defaults to enforcement and sanctions rather than genuinely seeking to understand and address the why of an attendance. Just over the summer, it was reported by Hampshire County Council that £1.6 million in revenue by finding families in the last few An increase of 22% from previous years. This can exacerbate stress experienced by families and failed to secure a child's education.
This amendment does not prevent enforcement, rather it sets clear parameters. We already have statutory codes and are working together. This thing -- frameworks bring clarity consistently. Why do we not have this for schools? Without a child, families are left in the dark well authorities very well the approach. Some parents describe the stress of being taken to court again and again. Some describe the threat of prison which does nothing to help the child. This is not proportionate enforcement, it is a system failure.
The contrast, were authorities have taken supportive approaches, outcomes improved. Parents felt listened to come a trusted and respected. Another family was given space when their child could not face a visit, and yet later the child chose to engage and proudly share her work. The child is now thriving at university for that's what good practice looks like. Partnership punishment. We mustn't forget those children for whom mainstream schooling has become unsafe or unbearable. Parents withdraw children because their mental health was deteriorating, sometimes dangerously so.
When child was self harming and recovered within a couple of months of home education. It is a rigid system that treats them as statistics to be reinforced against. This amendment would standardise enforcement so families are not punished for their postcode. It would prioritise support before coercion and give clarity to families and local authorities protecting the vulnerable, helping those officers who genuinely want to act fairly and provide guidance. It would restore it to legitimacy -- it would restore legitimacy interested public systems.
This is a long
**** Possible New Speaker ****
overdue measure. I commend it to the As the house will now, school attendance every day is absolutely attendance every day is absolutely critical for the success of pupils and during the pandemic, the and during the pandemic, the previous government introduced the collection of attendance data and
11:18
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
collection of attendance data and people level twice a day. Initially on a voluntary basis for all schools in England and now on a mandatory basis. We have among the best attendance data in the world, which allows every school in the country to understand the patterns of their attendance of absent, both looking at their own people cohort but also compared to other schools in their local authority. And I would like to thank the government for continuing the work we started in this area and particularly commend the officials who are responsible for producing such accessible and practical help to schools.
So I would argue that the system built in the Department of education and being used more by schools means they can already analyse the impact not just of the factory shutdown on attendance but perhaps more relevant today on a potential tube strike, but whether or many other factors pretty much in real time. -- weather. I'm not sure if this amendment is needed although I'm sure that Lord Storey was suggesting more flexibility in relation to school attendance.
I have to say I cannot agree with the noble Lord and I think the evidence that the department has produced in terms of the impact of missing even small amounts of time results at GCSE, for example, I really clear, and we need to respect that evidence. I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for setting out the purpose of his amendments -- amendment. You will forgive me if I didn't quite understand it in the way he presented it.
My understanding - the noble Lady the Minister will confirm - is that this is accommodated within the schools. I have sadly visited schools where children are able to take time out of the classroom and particularly those with a plan will often have the details of the flexibility set out. More broadly, there is extensive guidance and practical extensive guidance and practical health -- help to local authorities and all the other groups referred to in this amendment.
I would say the department has been particularly proactive in this area and encouraged those schools were succeeding in turning the tide on attendance to share their insights with those who are struggling and very often it is about those positive actions that they take, putting on more after-school clubs, for example, calling parents when a child has had a particularly good series of days of attendance with a message of congratulations I absolutely understand where my noble friend is coming from but I don't think the amendment is needed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This government is determined to break down barriers by supporting break down barriers by supporting every child to thrive at school. The Noble Baronesses right that even Noble Baronesses right that even small bits of absence, particularly when added up over a child because my career can disproportionately impact on that child's achievement
So I would argue that the system built in the Department of education and being used more by schools means they can already analyse the impact not just of the factory shutdown on attendance but perhaps more relevant today on a potential tube strike, but whether or many other factors pretty much in real time. -- weather. I'm not sure if this amendment is needed although I'm sure that Lord Storey was suggesting more flexibility in relation to school attendance.
I have to say I cannot agree with the noble Lord and I think the evidence that the department has produced in terms of the impact of missing even small amounts of time results at GCSE, for example, I really clear, and we need to respect that evidence. I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for setting out the purpose of his amendments -- amendment. You will forgive me if I didn't quite understand it in the way he presented it.
My understanding - the noble Lady the Minister will confirm - is that this is accommodated within the schools. I have sadly visited schools where children are able to take time out of the classroom and particularly those with a plan will often have the details of the flexibility set out. More broadly, there is extensive guidance and practical extensive guidance and practical health -- help to local authorities and all the other groups referred to in this amendment.
I would say the department has been particularly proactive in this area and encouraged those schools were succeeding in turning the tide on attendance to share their insights with those who are struggling and very often it is about those positive actions that they take, putting on more after-school clubs, for example, calling parents when a child has had a particularly good series of days of attendance with a message of congratulations I absolutely understand where my noble friend is coming from but I don't think the amendment is needed.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This government is determined to break down barriers by supporting break down barriers by supporting every child to thrive at school. The Noble Baronesses right that even Noble Baronesses right that even small bits of absence, particularly when added up over a child because my career can disproportionately impact on that child's achievement
11:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
impact on that child's achievement and, of course, create disruption in the classroom as well for other pupils. And that is why I am very pleased that thanks to the efforts of the sector, absence is moving in the right direction, with children attending over 3.1 million more days this year compared to last and over 100,000 fewer children persistently absent. This does still leave around one in five people's missing around 10% or more of school. Which is why the Noble Baronesses says there has been substantial work on this.
Including by the previous government, including herself to develop data and monitoring of progress. In addition, the department has developed an attendance toolkit, alongside the data tools, to support schools in identifying the drivers of absence and adopt effective practice when it comes to children, including the most vulnerable. Schools are supporting other schools. We have had events attended by around 3000 L from secondary schools from schools and local authorities to help to drive that change -- 3000 L -- leaders.
We do acknowledge that school attendance rates in particular locations can be influenced by a variety of external factors. However, schools and local authorities are best placed to identify those areas and specific issues and take steps to mitigate them. In general, the school year is structured in such a way as to provide plenty of time for holidays and family time outside of term time. But schools and local authorities also already have considerable flexibility between them to plan term dates and can also hold days at times of year when art suited which are suited to the needs of specific families -- times of year which are suited to families in specific areas.
I do accept the point made by the noble Lord story point made by the noble Lord story -- Lord Storey about tracker sizing -- the need to recognise the needs of different children. But also his call for there to be a standardised approach that sets out the requirements and the roles of those outlined in the amendment. I can say that there is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail those rules and responsibilities -- roles.
In fact, for all the institutions listed in the amendment, in order to improve attendance. This was updated in 2022 and in August 2024. The guidance takes a support-first approach to improve school attendance and is now widely known by the sector following extensive work by the Department to promote and embed its contents and to share best practice from around the country. And it will be updated as needed in the future. Introducing a separate code of practice is proposed -- as proposed by this amendment would duplicate this statutory guidance and I think risks confusion.
I think for the reasons I've outlined, noble Lords will be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
able to withdraw their amendments. And begging to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be by leave withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the next withdrawn. We now come to the next group, after close 35, Lord Wei.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
group, after close 35, Lord Wei. I rise to support amendments in my name. These are modest and aim to address the way that the system
Including by the previous government, including herself to develop data and monitoring of progress. In addition, the department has developed an attendance toolkit, alongside the data tools, to support schools in identifying the drivers of absence and adopt effective practice when it comes to children, including the most vulnerable. Schools are supporting other schools. We have had events attended by around 3000 L from secondary schools from schools and local authorities to help to drive that change -- 3000 L -- leaders.
We do acknowledge that school attendance rates in particular locations can be influenced by a variety of external factors. However, schools and local authorities are best placed to identify those areas and specific issues and take steps to mitigate them. In general, the school year is structured in such a way as to provide plenty of time for holidays and family time outside of term time. But schools and local authorities also already have considerable flexibility between them to plan term dates and can also hold days at times of year when art suited which are suited to the needs of specific families -- times of year which are suited to families in specific areas.
I do accept the point made by the noble Lord story point made by the noble Lord story -- Lord Storey about tracker sizing -- the need to recognise the needs of different children. But also his call for there to be a standardised approach that sets out the requirements and the roles of those outlined in the amendment. I can say that there is already statutory guidance which sets out in detail those rules and responsibilities -- roles.
In fact, for all the institutions listed in the amendment, in order to improve attendance. This was updated in 2022 and in August 2024. The guidance takes a support-first approach to improve school attendance and is now widely known by the sector following extensive work by the Department to promote and embed its contents and to share best practice from around the country. And it will be updated as needed in the future. Introducing a separate code of practice is proposed -- as proposed by this amendment would duplicate this statutory guidance and I think risks confusion.
I think for the reasons I've outlined, noble Lords will be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
able to withdraw their amendments. And begging to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be by leave withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. We now come to the next withdrawn. We now come to the next group, after close 35, Lord Wei.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
group, after close 35, Lord Wei. I rise to support amendments in my name. These are modest and aim to address the way that the system
11:27
Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Wei (Conservative)
deals with families. Sharing of best practice across local authorities and safeguarding of children from farm -- from harm that may arise. farm -- from harm that may arise. Let me first turn to amendment 46 -- 426D. One is the total of home educators in the area and the number of complaints received. Were these figures so important? They shed a light on how local authorities are engaging with families. They show how relationships are constructive. This amendment goes further.
Introduces -- it introduces a mechanism. Specifically those in the top 10% were complaints are relatively low to the number of families who receive funding and support to show the best practice with the authorities that find themselves in the bottom 10%. It's not about penalising weaker authorities. It's about improving system of engagement and building trusting relationships with trusting relationships with educators. While I may have focused in problems that arise when local authorities overreach, it is important to recognise there are many examples of constructive engagement which deserve to be commended.
Parents have spoken warmly of meetings were they felt the value or a child enjoyed showing his work, turning what might have been a stressful encounter into a positive one. Authorities such as Salford have invested in training staff to understand diverse approaches from structure to child- led learning. Families in Cambridge have noted that there efforts to educate officials about methods have been affected. Meetings have been piloted to support families considering elective home education, fostering collaboration. There are also parental advisory boards were family and officials meet in a supportive environment with the aim of providing access to resources.
Families respond positively in children thrive in these situations. And review, this is a light touch with constructive intervention that respects both the duties of local authorities and the rights of parents. It recognises that challenges of medication are best addressed not by top-down prescription but by care and good This amendment is motivated by an important principle that the welfare and education of the child must always come first. It makes clear that no parent should be subject to criminal prosecution, penalty or sanctions under the provisions of this bill if such legal action would cause harm to the child's welfare or cause greater harm to the education if the action were not taken.
This amendment is carefully drafted in section 1 of the children's act 1989. The bedrock of our child protection framework. It ties the understanding of education to both section 9 which requires parental wishes and article 2 of protocol 1 of the European of human rights which guarantees the right to education. It is not about creating a loophole but ensuring that the pursuit of enforcement does not in itself become a source of harm. We all know in the complex and varied circumstances of home education legal action can sometimes have unintended consequences.
It may disrupt the child's learning and undermine family stability, in some cases drive children into situations of greater vulnerability. We can't ignore the mounting evidence that forcing children back into unsuitable school environments or, lysing their parents for seeking alternatives, it too often inflict harm. Families have spoken of children spiralling into mental health crises at the age of six, of trauma so severe it triggered seizures and panic attacks or suicidal thoughts, of Sunday evenings filled with dread, stomach pains and tears. Research shows that never divergent children, particularly those with autism up this proportionately affected.
Parents describe the cruelty of being told they must either force their child into an environment that is destroying them or face fines, prosecutions or even imprisonment themselves. These plant instance create not only stress and poverty for families torso stigma, fear and breakdown of trust between authorities and parents. With testimony of children kicking and screaming to classrooms, restrained at school entrances, bullied and subject to neglect so great for further may die. Such stories make it clear that punitive enforcement does not safeguard but compounds trauma, disrupt education and fractious families.
The governments justice data for fines issued in court says they have doubled since 27 from 12,609 to 25,050 in 2025. Court fines often go unpaid. The total amount is 4.4 billion. This includes confiscation orders such as assets from Serious Crime Act. The outstanding amount owned for the court cost is huge. Research carried out demonstrates the most court fines are not paid. This indicates prosecuting parents is not a good outcome for the justice system either. They spend time enforcing fines for not being paid.
Court fines are disproportionately impacted and people living in poverty with research finding that increasing debt and impacting health. This is not mean that authorities cannot convene. It allows for civil measures or intervention where welfare is at risk and was an important line the such interventions must not affect education. I would suggest that is not merely a safeguard to families to safeguard the integrity of the state itself. Public authorities act in ways that inadvertently cause harm, trust is lost.
Without trust, the effectiveness is lost. These amendments embody a balanced approach. Amendment 46 are Sass to learn from those authorities who have built relationships with families. 46 he asks us to ensure that in our zeal to regulate, we do not inflict great harm on the children we seek to protect. In an area where parental choice and diversity of provision is vital, we can't afford a heavy-handed approach that alienates families and risks undermining children's welfare. If we are serious about the best interests of children and we believe in the rights of parents, then I urge the government to give these amendments serious consideration.
They represent a considerate step forward with the principal that no child should be harmed in the name
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of regulation. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, insert the following new clause and the words
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed in the Marshall list. I would like to support the thrust of both my noble friends thrust of both my noble friends amendments. The Department for education has a really important education has a really important role to play in helping local authorities drive up the quality of authorities drive up the quality of the standard, the quality of their relationships and service for the home educating community. The home educating community. The leadership that the partnership can provide, the feeling that local
Introduces -- it introduces a mechanism. Specifically those in the top 10% were complaints are relatively low to the number of families who receive funding and support to show the best practice with the authorities that find themselves in the bottom 10%. It's not about penalising weaker authorities. It's about improving system of engagement and building trusting relationships with trusting relationships with educators. While I may have focused in problems that arise when local authorities overreach, it is important to recognise there are many examples of constructive engagement which deserve to be commended.
Parents have spoken warmly of meetings were they felt the value or a child enjoyed showing his work, turning what might have been a stressful encounter into a positive one. Authorities such as Salford have invested in training staff to understand diverse approaches from structure to child- led learning. Families in Cambridge have noted that there efforts to educate officials about methods have been affected. Meetings have been piloted to support families considering elective home education, fostering collaboration. There are also parental advisory boards were family and officials meet in a supportive environment with the aim of providing access to resources.
Families respond positively in children thrive in these situations. And review, this is a light touch with constructive intervention that respects both the duties of local authorities and the rights of parents. It recognises that challenges of medication are best addressed not by top-down prescription but by care and good This amendment is motivated by an important principle that the welfare and education of the child must always come first. It makes clear that no parent should be subject to criminal prosecution, penalty or sanctions under the provisions of this bill if such legal action would cause harm to the child's welfare or cause greater harm to the education if the action were not taken.
This amendment is carefully drafted in section 1 of the children's act 1989. The bedrock of our child protection framework. It ties the understanding of education to both section 9 which requires parental wishes and article 2 of protocol 1 of the European of human rights which guarantees the right to education. It is not about creating a loophole but ensuring that the pursuit of enforcement does not in itself become a source of harm. We all know in the complex and varied circumstances of home education legal action can sometimes have unintended consequences.
It may disrupt the child's learning and undermine family stability, in some cases drive children into situations of greater vulnerability. We can't ignore the mounting evidence that forcing children back into unsuitable school environments or, lysing their parents for seeking alternatives, it too often inflict harm. Families have spoken of children spiralling into mental health crises at the age of six, of trauma so severe it triggered seizures and panic attacks or suicidal thoughts, of Sunday evenings filled with dread, stomach pains and tears. Research shows that never divergent children, particularly those with autism up this proportionately affected.
Parents describe the cruelty of being told they must either force their child into an environment that is destroying them or face fines, prosecutions or even imprisonment themselves. These plant instance create not only stress and poverty for families torso stigma, fear and breakdown of trust between authorities and parents. With testimony of children kicking and screaming to classrooms, restrained at school entrances, bullied and subject to neglect so great for further may die. Such stories make it clear that punitive enforcement does not safeguard but compounds trauma, disrupt education and fractious families.
The governments justice data for fines issued in court says they have doubled since 27 from 12,609 to 25,050 in 2025. Court fines often go unpaid. The total amount is 4.4 billion. This includes confiscation orders such as assets from Serious Crime Act. The outstanding amount owned for the court cost is huge. Research carried out demonstrates the most court fines are not paid. This indicates prosecuting parents is not a good outcome for the justice system either. They spend time enforcing fines for not being paid.
Court fines are disproportionately impacted and people living in poverty with research finding that increasing debt and impacting health. This is not mean that authorities cannot convene. It allows for civil measures or intervention where welfare is at risk and was an important line the such interventions must not affect education. I would suggest that is not merely a safeguard to families to safeguard the integrity of the state itself. Public authorities act in ways that inadvertently cause harm, trust is lost.
Without trust, the effectiveness is lost. These amendments embody a balanced approach. Amendment 46 are Sass to learn from those authorities who have built relationships with families. 46 he asks us to ensure that in our zeal to regulate, we do not inflict great harm on the children we seek to protect. In an area where parental choice and diversity of provision is vital, we can't afford a heavy-handed approach that alienates families and risks undermining children's welfare. If we are serious about the best interests of children and we believe in the rights of parents, then I urge the government to give these amendments serious consideration.
They represent a considerate step forward with the principal that no child should be harmed in the name
**** Possible New Speaker ****
of regulation. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, insert the following new clause and the words
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as printed in the Marshall list. I would like to support the thrust of both my noble friends thrust of both my noble friends amendments. The Department for education has a really important education has a really important role to play in helping local authorities drive up the quality of authorities drive up the quality of the standard, the quality of their relationships and service for the home educating community. The home educating community. The leadership that the partnership can provide, the feeling that local
11:36
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
provide, the feeling that local authorities can have, that they understand that what they are doing is something which is in the direction the government wishes to take. That needs to be transmitted, and doing it in a way which celebrates the achievements of local authorities which draws out what is happening and makes a good example of that is motivating and constructive way to do this, and I very much hope that the government will take this direction on. Local authority home educating departments tends to be small, to be a bit isolated, to be stuck sometimes at the back-end of safeguarding and subject to pressures that come from subject to pressures that come from that activity.
The department has a really important role to play in helping get things right. My noble friends second amendment as the government will know from my previous corrections that I support, we should be looking at the child first and punishing the parent second. I listen to the Secretary of State speech at the launch of the recent Children's Commissioner's report, and that was very much the spirit that I heard then. I hope it will be reflected in the government's answer today.
The department has a really important role to play in helping get things right. My noble friends second amendment as the government will know from my previous corrections that I support, we should be looking at the child first and punishing the parent second. I listen to the Secretary of State speech at the launch of the recent Children's Commissioner's report, and that was very much the spirit that I heard then. I hope it will be reflected in the government's answer today.
11:37
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
If I could make some remarks on Amendment 40 6D, Lord Lucas is right that it is important that good practice is shared between home educators and local authorities. It is important that the quality of home education is at the best it can possibly be, and we have a huge role to play in ensuring that happens. We already know that many noble Lords have given mention two particular local authorities, and the sterling work they have done with home educators.
I have a slight problem with the idea of the Secretary of State doing annual support. To me, given the distance of other amendments which are decrying the fact that more information is required, to put this report together which require doing that, asking for that form filling and more information to come to the centre. I think there might be good practice where local authorities might wish to do annual reports, and they might want to do a report on the work that is going on with home educators that could be shared with other home educators, but to put it in a formal way, I think it is bureaucracy gone mad.
On the second bureaucracy gone mad. On the second amendment, I am surprised at this amendment in the sense that schools are incredibly sensitive to the needs of children, particularly as has been mentioned, those with neuro diverse issues, autism. They pull out all the stops to support those children, and I just think this amendment might create problems for the attendance policies of local authorities, attendance policies which have been developed by previous government and this government, so I think we should recognise the current work that goes on, and despite concerns, I can tell you that in dealings I have had with the schools, with Head Teachers, with teachers, they are more than sensitive to the needs of those children and their pupils.
I have a slight problem with the idea of the Secretary of State doing annual support. To me, given the distance of other amendments which are decrying the fact that more information is required, to put this report together which require doing that, asking for that form filling and more information to come to the centre. I think there might be good practice where local authorities might wish to do annual reports, and they might want to do a report on the work that is going on with home educators that could be shared with other home educators, but to put it in a formal way, I think it is bureaucracy gone mad.
On the second bureaucracy gone mad. On the second amendment, I am surprised at this amendment in the sense that schools are incredibly sensitive to the needs of children, particularly as has been mentioned, those with neuro diverse issues, autism. They pull out all the stops to support those children, and I just think this amendment might create problems for the attendance policies of local authorities, attendance policies which have been developed by previous government and this government, so I think we should recognise the current work that goes on, and despite concerns, I can tell you that in dealings I have had with the schools, with Head Teachers, with teachers, they are more than sensitive to the needs of those children and their pupils.
11:40
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party)
Very briefly on this, it is mainly a query on 4 to 6 AE, and mainly a query on 4 to 6 AE, and that is around section 2, and I'm just wondering who would make the judgements and who would make the assessments around whether legal action would be required or not. And if it was to harm the child's welfare and greater harm to a child's education. I am just conscious, and I agree with Lord Storey around how schools in my experience have been very good at making assessments and dealing with those young people's difficulties.
The difficulties sometimes is the relationship between the school and the authorities. I find that is most problematic, so I'm not clear on supporting that amendment because of that clause in the sense that I'm not sure who would make that judgement, and who would make that judgement as to whether the child or young person is doing that deliberately or whether it is out of their mental-health state potentially, or some other reason, and I'm just keen to know who would make that judgement.
The difficulties sometimes is the relationship between the school and the authorities. I find that is most problematic, so I'm not clear on supporting that amendment because of that clause in the sense that I'm not sure who would make that judgement, and who would make that judgement as to whether the child or young person is doing that deliberately or whether it is out of their mental-health state potentially, or some other reason, and I'm just keen to know who would make that judgement.
11:42
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
My Lords, I must say, I would like to preface my remarks on these amendments by just saying that I really don't recognise the Dickensian school world that my noble friends describes, and I would encourage him to visit any of the schools that I visited led by Lord Nash, Lord Agnew, Lord Knight, Lord Hampton, and in case anyone is thinking that I only think about academies, my school of joy, Stanley Road primary in Oldham, where children are just bursting with pride at what they achieve in a clearly very deprived community, so I would just like to acknowledge and thank all of those who are involved across our schools in delivering education and joy to our children.
Turning to my noble friends, first Amendment 40 6D which seeks to create a mechanism for sharing best practice between local authorities regarding home education. Of course the principle of sharing best practice is an excellent one, but I do agree with the noble Lord Lord Storey when he says he thinks it is perhaps disproportionate for the Secretary of State to be requiring this report, and I would say that there is obviously nothing preventing local authorities trying to learn from one another already, and of course, local conditions vary very considerably, for example, in terms of the availability of special schools between local authorities, so I think the conclusions that could be drawn from the data that my noble friends suggests should be analysed and could be misleading.
And I also agree but the noble Lord Lord Storey in relation to 4 to 6 AE and the care that schools take to support children. I think there is a wider point, which is that I think you could argue that a lot of particularly criminal prosecutions of the child's parents could result in harm to the child, particularly if the child's principal carer is sent to prison, but that is something which the courts already consider, but I think my noble friends amendment would cut across many other areas of legislation, and some of the principles that underpin our criminal justice system in a way that just is not realistic.
But I am hoping the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to clarify both of these points when she comments.
Turning to my noble friends, first Amendment 40 6D which seeks to create a mechanism for sharing best practice between local authorities regarding home education. Of course the principle of sharing best practice is an excellent one, but I do agree with the noble Lord Lord Storey when he says he thinks it is perhaps disproportionate for the Secretary of State to be requiring this report, and I would say that there is obviously nothing preventing local authorities trying to learn from one another already, and of course, local conditions vary very considerably, for example, in terms of the availability of special schools between local authorities, so I think the conclusions that could be drawn from the data that my noble friends suggests should be analysed and could be misleading.
And I also agree but the noble Lord Lord Storey in relation to 4 to 6 AE and the care that schools take to support children. I think there is a wider point, which is that I think you could argue that a lot of particularly criminal prosecutions of the child's parents could result in harm to the child, particularly if the child's principal carer is sent to prison, but that is something which the courts already consider, but I think my noble friends amendment would cut across many other areas of legislation, and some of the principles that underpin our criminal justice system in a way that just is not realistic.
But I am hoping the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to clarify both of these points when she comments.
11:45
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
And I just by strongly associating myself with the comments of the noble Lady about the excellent work happening in schools around the country and the enormous pride, enjoyment and achievement that children experience in those that children experience in those I would, however, add that in the last weeks, the government was clear that there is a right to educate your children at home for parents in this country. In fact, as we have discussed, probably one of the most permissive regimes of any country to allow you to educate your child at allow you to educate your child at home.
With children not at school registers are about is ensuring that education is suitable and that children do not fall through gaps by virtue of claiming a suitable home education when that isn't what is being delivered. And I also say to the noble Lord that I have written to him, as I said I would do last week, on the detail of very many of his amendments and that letter either is or will be available in the library for other noble Lords to look at as well.
Speaking specifically on route to the amendments. This amendment seeks to introduce duty on local authorities to document the number of complaints and the Secretary of State would then be obliged to analyse that situation and provide resources. That assessment would be made based on the rate of complaints and the number of orders issues as a percentage of the overall cohort. The Department already runs a mandatory collection of data from local authorities concerning their home educated cohorts.
This collection includes the sides of romanticise of each cohort and -- the size of each cohort. That's why the bill contains measures that could be used to oblige local authorities to provide data returns to the Secretary of State. As we also discussed last week, we will consider how best to facilitate the sharing of best practice across local authorities from a central position using the data that the department will hold for early implementation of the children not in school register.
We talked about where there is good practice in local authorities and how we can share that and also the action taken already by the Department were local authorities action is disproportionate or not best for the trusting relationship that noble Lords are looking to regain today. In relation to the rewards and penalties implied in the noble Lord's amendment, we don't accept the obligation that higher numbers of school attendance orders issued are an automatic indicator of poor performance.
Local authorities must issue small attendance orders if a child is not in receipt of suitable education and it is expedient that the child attends school. It's a local authority areas, there may simply be more children in need of intervention. The noble Lords suggested India -- idea might dissuade them to issue orders in those circumstances. Amendment 426E limits as well. We believe that the law as it stands provides protection to the child and the child's parents and that this amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Children have a right to an education as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. That education must be suitable and safe. Parents preferences should be secured must always be considered by the local authority. The statutory guidance working together to safeguard children already requires local authority decisions to be made in the best interests of the child and offers clear guidance on how that principle should be upheld. School attendance order process is only commenced with the issuing of a preliminary notice when it does not appear to a local authority that a child is receiving a suitable education or where there is serious safeguarding concerns and it appears to the local authority that it would be in the child's best interest to attend school.
The measures and the bill will help ensure that children not in school receive a safe and suitable education suffer example, registers identify children who would otherwise fall through the gaps and a more efficient school attendance process will be used where children are not receiving a suitable save education to probably receive one. The amendment proposes not to preclude local authorities from taking other actions rather than pursuing legal actions. Of course, it is absolutely right that legal authorities should take a supportive role and to provide advice and guidance to parents.
However, in some cases, such actions will not be affected in securing a child's action and the option must be open to local authorities to have that child registered at a school even as a final measure. Without that option, a child could be left in a situation where they are not receiving a suitable education for an extended deal of time and that would certainly not be in their best interests. I hope therefore that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendments. I'm grateful to the Minister for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the Minister for her response and look forward to her response and look forward to this letter and also grateful to Parliament for the correspondence that I and now appears have that I and now appears have received. Just wanted to reflect on received. Just wanted to reflect on some of the contributions that were made. First of all, to just clarify
With children not at school registers are about is ensuring that education is suitable and that children do not fall through gaps by virtue of claiming a suitable home education when that isn't what is being delivered. And I also say to the noble Lord that I have written to him, as I said I would do last week, on the detail of very many of his amendments and that letter either is or will be available in the library for other noble Lords to look at as well.
Speaking specifically on route to the amendments. This amendment seeks to introduce duty on local authorities to document the number of complaints and the Secretary of State would then be obliged to analyse that situation and provide resources. That assessment would be made based on the rate of complaints and the number of orders issues as a percentage of the overall cohort. The Department already runs a mandatory collection of data from local authorities concerning their home educated cohorts.
This collection includes the sides of romanticise of each cohort and -- the size of each cohort. That's why the bill contains measures that could be used to oblige local authorities to provide data returns to the Secretary of State. As we also discussed last week, we will consider how best to facilitate the sharing of best practice across local authorities from a central position using the data that the department will hold for early implementation of the children not in school register.
We talked about where there is good practice in local authorities and how we can share that and also the action taken already by the Department were local authorities action is disproportionate or not best for the trusting relationship that noble Lords are looking to regain today. In relation to the rewards and penalties implied in the noble Lord's amendment, we don't accept the obligation that higher numbers of school attendance orders issued are an automatic indicator of poor performance.
Local authorities must issue small attendance orders if a child is not in receipt of suitable education and it is expedient that the child attends school. It's a local authority areas, there may simply be more children in need of intervention. The noble Lords suggested India -- idea might dissuade them to issue orders in those circumstances. Amendment 426E limits as well. We believe that the law as it stands provides protection to the child and the child's parents and that this amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Children have a right to an education as set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. That education must be suitable and safe. Parents preferences should be secured must always be considered by the local authority. The statutory guidance working together to safeguard children already requires local authority decisions to be made in the best interests of the child and offers clear guidance on how that principle should be upheld. School attendance order process is only commenced with the issuing of a preliminary notice when it does not appear to a local authority that a child is receiving a suitable education or where there is serious safeguarding concerns and it appears to the local authority that it would be in the child's best interest to attend school.
The measures and the bill will help ensure that children not in school receive a safe and suitable education suffer example, registers identify children who would otherwise fall through the gaps and a more efficient school attendance process will be used where children are not receiving a suitable save education to probably receive one. The amendment proposes not to preclude local authorities from taking other actions rather than pursuing legal actions. Of course, it is absolutely right that legal authorities should take a supportive role and to provide advice and guidance to parents.
However, in some cases, such actions will not be affected in securing a child's action and the option must be open to local authorities to have that child registered at a school even as a final measure. Without that option, a child could be left in a situation where they are not receiving a suitable education for an extended deal of time and that would certainly not be in their best interests. I hope therefore that the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendments. I'm grateful to the Minister for
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful to the Minister for her response and look forward to her response and look forward to this letter and also grateful to Parliament for the correspondence that I and now appears have that I and now appears have received. Just wanted to reflect on received. Just wanted to reflect on some of the contributions that were made. First of all, to just clarify
11:52
Lord Wei (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Wei (Conservative)
made. First of all, to just clarify that the request for information from local authorities is asking from local authorities is asking them to provide some of the data that they already have, and even though it might seem a bit bureaucratic, I don't think it actually would require much more than a few minutes probably once a year. This is to be balanced with the tremendous bureaucratic demands that we placed -- will be placed on hundreds of families for all the information pertaining to the education of their child, which will take in many cases many, many hours or weeks even based on testimonials I've received from families.
I don't think it is wrong to ask for datasharing on the local authority's side, given the burden that is to be placed on parents. With regards to my other amendment 426E, we are not talking about mainstream schooling for the majority of pupils in this country. When I talk about some of the distress, the suicides or attempted suicides from children being forced back into school through similar measures, we are talking about extreme cases in this country where it isn't appropriate for the child to be sent to a school.
Perhaps they have been home educated other life. Perhaps the parents have been busy home educating and being repeatedly asked by the local authority for information. Perhaps they have said, "We cannot share any more, we need to educate our child." This is then interpreted as the child not receiving suitable education. At the moment, there is no protection and you can go down the legal process. There is a gap and I would urge the Minister to look at this gap when it's not the school deciding, when it is the local authority deciding, in some cases without much resource or knowing what people experience.
They have to make a very significant decision to take action against that family. All I'm saying is why don't we pay attention to the harm that might cause. Schools are cognisant of this if they are functioning well. I'm not sure in every case every local authority is able to make that decision on their own. By the time you get to the courts and the courts have enforced principles of the European Court and so on. This is going to create uncertainty and stress which will impact on the child's education.
I hope the I'm child's education. I hope the I'm hopeful for the -- I'm hopeful for the Minister's response. For now, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment 426E, not made. -- Not Amendment 426E, not made. -- Not Amendment 426E, not made. -- Not moved. In clause 36, amendment 427,
I don't think it is wrong to ask for datasharing on the local authority's side, given the burden that is to be placed on parents. With regards to my other amendment 426E, we are not talking about mainstream schooling for the majority of pupils in this country. When I talk about some of the distress, the suicides or attempted suicides from children being forced back into school through similar measures, we are talking about extreme cases in this country where it isn't appropriate for the child to be sent to a school.
Perhaps they have been home educated other life. Perhaps the parents have been busy home educating and being repeatedly asked by the local authority for information. Perhaps they have said, "We cannot share any more, we need to educate our child." This is then interpreted as the child not receiving suitable education. At the moment, there is no protection and you can go down the legal process. There is a gap and I would urge the Minister to look at this gap when it's not the school deciding, when it is the local authority deciding, in some cases without much resource or knowing what people experience.
They have to make a very significant decision to take action against that family. All I'm saying is why don't we pay attention to the harm that might cause. Schools are cognisant of this if they are functioning well. I'm not sure in every case every local authority is able to make that decision on their own. By the time you get to the courts and the courts have enforced principles of the European Court and so on. This is going to create uncertainty and stress which will impact on the child's education.
I hope the I'm child's education. I hope the I'm hopeful for the -- I'm hopeful for the Minister's response. For now, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment 426E, not made. -- Not Amendment 426E, not made. -- Not Amendment 426E, not made. -- Not moved. In clause 36, amendment 427,
11:56
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
Lord Lucas.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I raised to speak to amendment 427 and other amendments in this group. Amendment 47 enters the group. Amendment 47 enters the practice of local authorities placing children in unregistered placing children in unregistered alternative provision. This should not happen. These children need quality provision almost by definition. That they should be placed in a unregistered provision placed in a unregistered provision by the state seems to be a complete by the state seems to be a complete rejection of duty.
Amendment 427 B suggesting to the Minister that they should tighten up or give themselves additional scope to deal with additional scope to deal with unregistered legal schools, which unregistered legal schools, which unregistered legal schools, which seeks to disguise the issue by placing themselves into different parts. It has been a technical issue there. The government should address this. The other amendments in this this. The other amendments in this group address the challenge that this bill presents to the religious community.
Of Italy, this will apply to other religious communities where they provide education for children. I'm focusing on this community because I have been speaking to them but I have no authority to speak for them or deep knowledge of their life. There are a vulnerable and peaceful community. Contributors to commercial life and common good. Though in many ways, they keep themselves apart. It is part of the British way as I understand it to respect religions. The heredity community -- this community has different approaches to matters.
Such as keeping sexuality as a private matter. In my experience of the way this country is organised and for these offences and do not attempt to eradicate them. We do, though, said entries and we should be confident in doing so. There have been religions where murder and child abuse have been common features and we are quite right to say, "Now, those are off limits, no matter what religious belief." Those boundaries will obviously change over time.
This bill, as it is currently understood, places the Haredi system of yeshivas beyond boundaries. Yeshivas would be outlawed by it. The principal conflict around the requirement that achievers would have to register at schools and thus be bound by the curriculum and moral teachings that we expect of independent schools. This, the community feel, would be fundamentally in conflict with the Torah and make it impossible for them to continue. My interest in moving these amendments is not so much the particular wording of them.
Are very conscious of their imperfection and I really rather prefer the Bishop of Manchester's approach, but I wish to draw out from the Minister her governance -- her government's intentions. Does the government wish to crush Haredi education or does it seek to make an accommodation? If the government wishes to crush, I expect we will hear from the Minister an exploration of the deeper implications of such an approach to other religions and religious organisations. If the bushes for resolution, what is the Minister for? I can see a range of ways in which a resolution might be reached though I have no authority to negotiate.
The Bishop's amendment is negotiate. The Bishop's amendment is The contention of the community is that the children are home educated, and the older male children receive an extensive and intensive religious upbringing. So is the government prepared to live with the idea that religious education outside of school provided to children who attend school or who are home educated is outwith the reach of the independent schools regulation in the bill? If the government wishes to regulate religious education, how does it propose to constrain the content from such education? A requirement that the education is not something that would be reasonable.
The yeshivas would pass that easily, but I would like to see what the government's position is. If the government is prepared to accept that home education provided to her ready child is to be regarded in the full-time education, what criteria would be used in judging that acceptance? The government might expect to see sufficient times set aside in a child's life for the general education that they require to realise their potential as fully functioning members of society outside their ready community if they so wish.
That has always been my understanding of where the current settlement is with religious minorities. Judging the efficiency of that home education and the safeguarding of the children would be the task of the local authority. As it is for other home educators. Given the particular character of life and its consistency, it might well be of help to local authorities if the standard way of assessing home education could be agreed. And that was what I was setting out to do in a clumsy way to which to focus on detail on that.
If that is acceptable, are the other restrictions which the government would like to place on the accommodation? I get the feeling that the concept of the school day is important to the government, the hours between nine and for Monday to Friday, and that the government would accept that each child was not there for more than a limited amount of time. There is nothing set down the bill, and I can quite understand why in the general context of dealing with the schools.
Nonetheless, if activity within the school day is an important thing for the government, the number of hours could surely be made specific in the context of an agreement with the community. Any agreement would have course be open for renegotiation on either side of the experience. It might be hard to get it right first time that I would really like to see this government setting out to say that different though they are, they are different part of British life and we wish to support them, so where does the government stand? I beg to me.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I raised to speak to amendment 427 and other amendments in this group. Amendment 47 enters the group. Amendment 47 enters the practice of local authorities placing children in unregistered placing children in unregistered alternative provision. This should not happen. These children need quality provision almost by definition. That they should be placed in a unregistered provision placed in a unregistered provision by the state seems to be a complete by the state seems to be a complete rejection of duty.
Amendment 427 B suggesting to the Minister that they should tighten up or give themselves additional scope to deal with additional scope to deal with unregistered legal schools, which unregistered legal schools, which unregistered legal schools, which seeks to disguise the issue by placing themselves into different parts. It has been a technical issue there. The government should address this. The other amendments in this this. The other amendments in this group address the challenge that this bill presents to the religious community.
Of Italy, this will apply to other religious communities where they provide education for children. I'm focusing on this community because I have been speaking to them but I have no authority to speak for them or deep knowledge of their life. There are a vulnerable and peaceful community. Contributors to commercial life and common good. Though in many ways, they keep themselves apart. It is part of the British way as I understand it to respect religions. The heredity community -- this community has different approaches to matters.
Such as keeping sexuality as a private matter. In my experience of the way this country is organised and for these offences and do not attempt to eradicate them. We do, though, said entries and we should be confident in doing so. There have been religions where murder and child abuse have been common features and we are quite right to say, "Now, those are off limits, no matter what religious belief." Those boundaries will obviously change over time.
This bill, as it is currently understood, places the Haredi system of yeshivas beyond boundaries. Yeshivas would be outlawed by it. The principal conflict around the requirement that achievers would have to register at schools and thus be bound by the curriculum and moral teachings that we expect of independent schools. This, the community feel, would be fundamentally in conflict with the Torah and make it impossible for them to continue. My interest in moving these amendments is not so much the particular wording of them.
Are very conscious of their imperfection and I really rather prefer the Bishop of Manchester's approach, but I wish to draw out from the Minister her governance -- her government's intentions. Does the government wish to crush Haredi education or does it seek to make an accommodation? If the government wishes to crush, I expect we will hear from the Minister an exploration of the deeper implications of such an approach to other religions and religious organisations. If the bushes for resolution, what is the Minister for? I can see a range of ways in which a resolution might be reached though I have no authority to negotiate.
The Bishop's amendment is negotiate. The Bishop's amendment is The contention of the community is that the children are home educated, and the older male children receive an extensive and intensive religious upbringing. So is the government prepared to live with the idea that religious education outside of school provided to children who attend school or who are home educated is outwith the reach of the independent schools regulation in the bill? If the government wishes to regulate religious education, how does it propose to constrain the content from such education? A requirement that the education is not something that would be reasonable.
The yeshivas would pass that easily, but I would like to see what the government's position is. If the government is prepared to accept that home education provided to her ready child is to be regarded in the full-time education, what criteria would be used in judging that acceptance? The government might expect to see sufficient times set aside in a child's life for the general education that they require to realise their potential as fully functioning members of society outside their ready community if they so wish.
That has always been my understanding of where the current settlement is with religious minorities. Judging the efficiency of that home education and the safeguarding of the children would be the task of the local authority. As it is for other home educators. Given the particular character of life and its consistency, it might well be of help to local authorities if the standard way of assessing home education could be agreed. And that was what I was setting out to do in a clumsy way to which to focus on detail on that.
If that is acceptable, are the other restrictions which the government would like to place on the accommodation? I get the feeling that the concept of the school day is important to the government, the hours between nine and for Monday to Friday, and that the government would accept that each child was not there for more than a limited amount of time. There is nothing set down the bill, and I can quite understand why in the general context of dealing with the schools.
Nonetheless, if activity within the school day is an important thing for the government, the number of hours could surely be made specific in the context of an agreement with the community. Any agreement would have course be open for renegotiation on either side of the experience. It might be hard to get it right first time that I would really like to see this government setting out to say that different though they are, they are different part of British life and we wish to support them, so where does the government stand? I beg to me.
12:05
The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Oxford (Bishops)
Amendment proposed, clause 36 page 79, line 16, at the end, insert the words as printed on the Marshall
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. It is a pleasure to follow Lord Lucas and to associate myself with Lucas and to associate myself with his remarks. I rise to speak to the amendment 40 7C on behalf of my colleague the noble pallet the colleague the noble pallet the Bishop of Manchester in his name, the amendment stands. He very much the amendment stands. He very much regrets his inability to attend today's committee stage. The Bishop today's committee stage. The Bishop of Manchester is solution is practical to the finely balanced tension between freedom and regulation in education invited by regulation in education invited by religious bodies.
As things stand, the proposed bill would recognise the proposed bill would recognise two types of full-time education. Education would be undertaken in Education would be undertaken in either a school or an independent educational institution. The latter would need to be registered would need to be registered according to the 2008 act, and the requirement to register would apply to education that is more than half to education that is more than half time. I need to include education provided by religious bodies and national mechanisms for oversight is national mechanisms for oversight is well understood by all.
The Church of England has taken enormous strides forward in both safeguarding training and processes. In local parishes that it welcomed, an average of 95,000 children each week. In 2023. We welcome the government's goal to strengthen education oversight across the nation, but in relation to education provided by religious bodies, there are three issues with the bill as it stands. First, as the National Society for education wrote, in its response to government of safeguarding in and out of school settings, compulsory state legislation for religious activity involving children would significantly extend the role of the state and civil society and represent the considerable and major change for the nature of religious freedom.
Freedom of religion and belief is a precious human liberty, and legislators should think very carefully about the unintended consequences, as well as the intended ones before looking at regulations that might inadvertently threaten that freedom and inhibit religious diversity. The possibility of unintended consequences bring me to my second point. There is a risk that imposing bureaucratic burdens on many volunteer run out of school settings would have on and intended chilling effect. Those consequences might easily follow from a new burden to tot up religious educational activities like choir practice fear of exceeding the part-time hours which registration does not require.
This is to say nothing of the practicalities of securing all the identifiable data that keeps details current would impose on the government as well as the religious educational institution. Thirdly, there is a difficult case like yeshivas that don't quite fit any of the categories that the present bill categories that the present bill proposes. No one speaks to make sure the children are being educated both broadly and safely in addition to any religious component of their education.
This brings me to the proposed amendment which offers a proportional route forward by ensuring that the setting limits itself to education and the local authority has been clearly notified that an attendee has suitable out of school education separately and with time set aside to allow children to receive the order education, and the provider of that religious education, demonstrating to the local authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures that provisions of the bill can be met.
I commend the amendment to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister and the house. My Lords, first of all, I would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, first of all, I would like to thank the Bishop of like to thank the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment. I really respect his gentleness and really respect his gentleness and his nobility and it is very much
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. It is a pleasure to follow Lord Lucas and to associate myself with Lucas and to associate myself with his remarks. I rise to speak to the amendment 40 7C on behalf of my colleague the noble pallet the colleague the noble pallet the Bishop of Manchester in his name, the amendment stands. He very much the amendment stands. He very much regrets his inability to attend today's committee stage. The Bishop today's committee stage. The Bishop of Manchester is solution is practical to the finely balanced tension between freedom and regulation in education invited by regulation in education invited by religious bodies.
As things stand, the proposed bill would recognise the proposed bill would recognise two types of full-time education. Education would be undertaken in Education would be undertaken in either a school or an independent educational institution. The latter would need to be registered would need to be registered according to the 2008 act, and the requirement to register would apply to education that is more than half to education that is more than half time. I need to include education provided by religious bodies and national mechanisms for oversight is national mechanisms for oversight is well understood by all.
The Church of England has taken enormous strides forward in both safeguarding training and processes. In local parishes that it welcomed, an average of 95,000 children each week. In 2023. We welcome the government's goal to strengthen education oversight across the nation, but in relation to education provided by religious bodies, there are three issues with the bill as it stands. First, as the National Society for education wrote, in its response to government of safeguarding in and out of school settings, compulsory state legislation for religious activity involving children would significantly extend the role of the state and civil society and represent the considerable and major change for the nature of religious freedom.
Freedom of religion and belief is a precious human liberty, and legislators should think very carefully about the unintended consequences, as well as the intended ones before looking at regulations that might inadvertently threaten that freedom and inhibit religious diversity. The possibility of unintended consequences bring me to my second point. There is a risk that imposing bureaucratic burdens on many volunteer run out of school settings would have on and intended chilling effect. Those consequences might easily follow from a new burden to tot up religious educational activities like choir practice fear of exceeding the part-time hours which registration does not require.
This is to say nothing of the practicalities of securing all the identifiable data that keeps details current would impose on the government as well as the religious educational institution. Thirdly, there is a difficult case like yeshivas that don't quite fit any of the categories that the present bill categories that the present bill proposes. No one speaks to make sure the children are being educated both broadly and safely in addition to any religious component of their education.
This brings me to the proposed amendment which offers a proportional route forward by ensuring that the setting limits itself to education and the local authority has been clearly notified that an attendee has suitable out of school education separately and with time set aside to allow children to receive the order education, and the provider of that religious education, demonstrating to the local authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures that provisions of the bill can be met.
I commend the amendment to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Minister and the house. My Lords, first of all, I would
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, first of all, I would like to thank the Bishop of like to thank the Bishop of Manchester for this amendment. I really respect his gentleness and really respect his gentleness and his nobility and it is very much
12:09
Lord Glasman (Labour)
-
-
Lord Glasman (Labour)
his nobility and it is very much appreciated. I would like to begin with a couple of remarks is a very rarely speak in the house. When I got here, I was given very sage advice that the more you speak, the less people listen. So I do beg the attention of house in this case. This is a matter of great importance to me. And the third thing which may come as a surprise to my fellow Labour peers is that in the 14 years I have been here, I have never once voted against the party.
I think that party loyalty is a very crucial part of our constitutional system so I'm just saying that this is a very important matter to me. It is not a matter of conscience. Conscience is a still small voice. So, this is a matter of obligation from which I speak. I am the Lord of Stoke Newington and of Stanford Hill. Stoke Newington doesn't really matter in this case because they don't care, but Stanford Hill is the centre of the last remnant of European hissy Dick choose.
During their origin in 17th-century Ukraine but also Poland, around there, of the 6 million who were murdered by the Nazis, 3 1/2 million were Hasidic Jews. They were absolutely devastated. They are very strange bunch. Very mystic. Very spiritual. Absolutely not involved in Zionism or things like that. They refuse to serve those who serve in the military army. They are very committed to exile and a kind of redemption through prayer. So, for those here who are Muslim, I would say they are very close to the Sufi tendency there, for those who are Christian, I would say actually probably closer to the Amish.
Like that film Witness with Harrison Ford, that moment with the child. I Ford, that moment with the child. I was brought up close to them but not of them. My story is different. I became a socialist and an atheist and my troubles began. Also probably the parties trouble began at that moment. But I have always had a relationship with them, both family and personal, and to me, they are a very precious remnant of a destroyed culture, and it is a glory to the country that this very peculiar religious community only could exist in our country.
It only survived in our country. I can tell stories I was told when I was young. They had no idea. Although rabbis, or their community, their family was in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, those areas. After the war, there was no one there. I met people who went on delegations to find the family. I travelled all through Ukraine, got to the villages, gone to the towns where genes were 60, 70%. It is all gone. The synagogues are ruined, the cemeteries are desecrated.
Only in our country did this community survive, and they are a historical anomaly. They shouldn't really exist. They should have been wiped out. It was mainly the Nazis. The Bolsheviks, the communists absolutely laid them to waste. They abolish religious education, the sheep is where illegal. So I think we should takes great pride in the fact that our country is unique in Europe and having some kind of continuity of this community. And the way that things were sorted out with the yeshivas, and Lord Lucas, I heard very carefully what you said and I share completely this to find some accommodation and understanding of how this works.
It is a ridiculous statement that I have to be in Stanford Hill and defend the accusation of being a Bolshevik. I assure them I am absolutely not, but the memory of the community is precisely reminiscent of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, the education will be banned. Their way of life will be criminalised. And they are packing their bags. It is a very moving situation. So, not a matter of conscience for me but absolutely a matter of obligation.
The arrangement we came to in the 1944 act was very wise in my opinion. It absolutely is vital to say that the accommodation was based on the yeshivas. The children are home educated. However, they spend an awful lot of time studying the Talmud, studying these things. I can assure you that I am very grateful not to be part of that, but that is what they do. And so, the children are homeschooled. Now, in this bill, generally I support it, and I would have supported unconditionally if it wasn't for this area.
On the case of the well-being, I worked for many years until he died with Rabbi pincer who was relieved of the community in terms of educational matters. The have been enormous steps forward in relation to homeschooling. There is internet packages, and I'm assuring you that the parents of these children are absolutely committed to their well- Every place has a phone number, designated officer and I can testify there have been huge changes regarding their well-being and safeguards around children, and I really commend them for that.
However, their way of life is very much based on the study of the Bible, of the Torah, and within Bible, of the Torah, and within that, they do maths, they do textual analysis. The quality of the education is very different in its structure. The purpose of the amendment is to restore the 19 restore the 1944 modus vivendi. restore the 1944 modus vivendi. Yeshivas are not schools but places of religious education.
I know from extensive discussions with the community that they are absolutely ready to engage. When it comes to the safeguarding measures, as I say, and fully persuaded they have taken resolute and determinate action across the community. I'm always turning up to the yeshivas, I'm always turning up, and they call me the Lord Above which might sound sacrilegious but it is the Lord that lives above a shop. And present in that community, ensuring that the safeguarding and well-being is safeguarding and well-being is adequately enforced -- I am present.
What I say to my government is that I don't think for a moment there was any intention to persecute or render illegal -- prosecute or render illegal Hasidic education. Sometimes, there are unintended consequences. What's happened is due to the freezing of the bill, the very foundation of the way of being -- way of living in the Hasidic community is under threat. They are very anxious. All I ask is if anything in this bill undermines the structure, it gives us the opportunity to discuss together how to reach an appropriate settlement that can put the well-being of the child at the centre, that can put the safeguarding of children absolutely and unconditionally in place, and also the quality of the home education.
This is the idea that has been really attended to. I can bear witness to this. All they are asking is to be able to express their anxiety.
I think that party loyalty is a very crucial part of our constitutional system so I'm just saying that this is a very important matter to me. It is not a matter of conscience. Conscience is a still small voice. So, this is a matter of obligation from which I speak. I am the Lord of Stoke Newington and of Stanford Hill. Stoke Newington doesn't really matter in this case because they don't care, but Stanford Hill is the centre of the last remnant of European hissy Dick choose.
During their origin in 17th-century Ukraine but also Poland, around there, of the 6 million who were murdered by the Nazis, 3 1/2 million were Hasidic Jews. They were absolutely devastated. They are very strange bunch. Very mystic. Very spiritual. Absolutely not involved in Zionism or things like that. They refuse to serve those who serve in the military army. They are very committed to exile and a kind of redemption through prayer. So, for those here who are Muslim, I would say they are very close to the Sufi tendency there, for those who are Christian, I would say actually probably closer to the Amish.
Like that film Witness with Harrison Ford, that moment with the child. I Ford, that moment with the child. I was brought up close to them but not of them. My story is different. I became a socialist and an atheist and my troubles began. Also probably the parties trouble began at that moment. But I have always had a relationship with them, both family and personal, and to me, they are a very precious remnant of a destroyed culture, and it is a glory to the country that this very peculiar religious community only could exist in our country.
It only survived in our country. I can tell stories I was told when I was young. They had no idea. Although rabbis, or their community, their family was in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, those areas. After the war, there was no one there. I met people who went on delegations to find the family. I travelled all through Ukraine, got to the villages, gone to the towns where genes were 60, 70%. It is all gone. The synagogues are ruined, the cemeteries are desecrated.
Only in our country did this community survive, and they are a historical anomaly. They shouldn't really exist. They should have been wiped out. It was mainly the Nazis. The Bolsheviks, the communists absolutely laid them to waste. They abolish religious education, the sheep is where illegal. So I think we should takes great pride in the fact that our country is unique in Europe and having some kind of continuity of this community. And the way that things were sorted out with the yeshivas, and Lord Lucas, I heard very carefully what you said and I share completely this to find some accommodation and understanding of how this works.
It is a ridiculous statement that I have to be in Stanford Hill and defend the accusation of being a Bolshevik. I assure them I am absolutely not, but the memory of the community is precisely reminiscent of the Soviet Union. Suddenly, the education will be banned. Their way of life will be criminalised. And they are packing their bags. It is a very moving situation. So, not a matter of conscience for me but absolutely a matter of obligation.
The arrangement we came to in the 1944 act was very wise in my opinion. It absolutely is vital to say that the accommodation was based on the yeshivas. The children are home educated. However, they spend an awful lot of time studying the Talmud, studying these things. I can assure you that I am very grateful not to be part of that, but that is what they do. And so, the children are homeschooled. Now, in this bill, generally I support it, and I would have supported unconditionally if it wasn't for this area.
On the case of the well-being, I worked for many years until he died with Rabbi pincer who was relieved of the community in terms of educational matters. The have been enormous steps forward in relation to homeschooling. There is internet packages, and I'm assuring you that the parents of these children are absolutely committed to their well- Every place has a phone number, designated officer and I can testify there have been huge changes regarding their well-being and safeguards around children, and I really commend them for that.
However, their way of life is very much based on the study of the Bible, of the Torah, and within Bible, of the Torah, and within that, they do maths, they do textual analysis. The quality of the education is very different in its structure. The purpose of the amendment is to restore the 19 restore the 1944 modus vivendi. restore the 1944 modus vivendi. Yeshivas are not schools but places of religious education.
I know from extensive discussions with the community that they are absolutely ready to engage. When it comes to the safeguarding measures, as I say, and fully persuaded they have taken resolute and determinate action across the community. I'm always turning up to the yeshivas, I'm always turning up, and they call me the Lord Above which might sound sacrilegious but it is the Lord that lives above a shop. And present in that community, ensuring that the safeguarding and well-being is safeguarding and well-being is adequately enforced -- I am present.
What I say to my government is that I don't think for a moment there was any intention to persecute or render illegal -- prosecute or render illegal Hasidic education. Sometimes, there are unintended consequences. What's happened is due to the freezing of the bill, the very foundation of the way of being -- way of living in the Hasidic community is under threat. They are very anxious. All I ask is if anything in this bill undermines the structure, it gives us the opportunity to discuss together how to reach an appropriate settlement that can put the well-being of the child at the centre, that can put the safeguarding of children absolutely and unconditionally in place, and also the quality of the home education.
This is the idea that has been really attended to. I can bear witness to this. All they are asking is to be able to express their anxiety.
12:19
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-affiliated)
I want to speak very briefly to overall support of amendment set out by the Bishop of Oxford and the Bishop of Manchester. Also the Lord My comments are not directed just to the Minister but also to her officials. I would encourage them to really engage with the thrust of this was. If this is not the right wording, then something along those lines because any of us who have served time at the Department of education know that these are difficult issues relating to and have become more complicated.
And whilst we have heard particular focus on a particular religious group, I know from people's conversations both in relation to receivers -- yeshivas and other religious institutions, there is always a reason why there should be an exception. We also know there are going to be those who seek to subvert any exception for the wrong reasons and that is the young people who would lose out. What attracts me to this amount is the fact that obviously the local authority would be involved in terms of both registration but also safeguarding and assurance.
I have little concern... Don't want to go back to 1944 when the world was very different. Overall, as we heard, there are many communities who do want to both comply with the law but also to have their practices and customs respected and I really hope that when we get to the next stage of the bill, we can find a way through so that these provisions are able to go through supported by this whole house.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to oppose the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to oppose the amendment 427C. I do so whilst treading with great care. I realise both the history and sensitivities and the passion and commitment of the people passion and commitment of the people involved. I don't pretend to be part of that community or to criticise it
And whilst we have heard particular focus on a particular religious group, I know from people's conversations both in relation to receivers -- yeshivas and other religious institutions, there is always a reason why there should be an exception. We also know there are going to be those who seek to subvert any exception for the wrong reasons and that is the young people who would lose out. What attracts me to this amount is the fact that obviously the local authority would be involved in terms of both registration but also safeguarding and assurance.
I have little concern... Don't want to go back to 1944 when the world was very different. Overall, as we heard, there are many communities who do want to both comply with the law but also to have their practices and customs respected and I really hope that when we get to the next stage of the bill, we can find a way through so that these provisions are able to go through supported by this whole house.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to oppose the amendment
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to oppose the amendment 427C. I do so whilst treading with great care. I realise both the history and sensitivities and the passion and commitment of the people passion and commitment of the people involved. I don't pretend to be part of that community or to criticise it
12:22
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
in anyway. I'm very proud that our country welcomes people of all faiths. I've always been a defender of faith schools. I served on the board of Church of England Schools. That's the background I come from. I cannot support this amendment. Over the past 12 months, together with the noble Baroness, I've had the privilege of meeting some young adults who have been a students at yeshivas and educated within the system and look within the community. And to be honest, they would not recognise the description that Lord Glasman has just given.
They would not describe their own education and their own lives in that way. I think our starting point should be that as with any school, any community, there is a risk to children if we don't protect them in an orderly way in the way that we should. I'm not opposed to this community being able to continue to educate in its own faith. Why wouldn't we wish it to do that? When we allow any other faith to the same. But that is already possible.
There are already registered schools where parents can sound -- send their children. It's not the case of if you close down the yeshivas, no one can have a faith school based in this FA. What I do have a problem with is the yeshiva. This is where I oppose amendment 427C and my argument for it is very straightforward. If you were there at the age of eight -- if you were there and -- if you were there at eight in the morning and leave out Sue -- at six, it's not the school.
It is not easy and there's an element of compromise. But what I heard from people that I've spoken to so far is that will welcome the bill, we all want things to be regulated to protect children but not this. Not this religion, not this fate, not this group. I can't buy into that. I want to say that I think every child, including children in this community, deserve to be safeguarded and deserve to have a broad and balanced education. Unless you register it, I can't see how it happens.
Where I think the debate comes is about the nature of the registration and the consultation with the community. And I would absolutely urge the Minister, as I know she will have done already, as Baroness Barran spoke about as well, I would not want to support anything that excluded children from this community not to be safeguarded in the way that children from all other communities are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support what my noble friend Baroness Morris has just friend Baroness Morris has just ... I'm ... I'm familiar ... I'm familiar with ... I'm familiar with this ... I'm familiar with this community and I admire a great deal of what they do but I'm very concerned about they do but I'm very concerned about what is happening to some of the boys in this community. I share the boys in this community.
I share the concern but it's not only on the meetings I have had with Baroness Morris with some of the young men Morris with some of the young men who have been through these who have been through these institutions, but also with the very, I think, good charity which is very, I think, good charity which is called Nahamu, which is concerned about the abuses of children which are taking place in these particular are taking place in these particular types of yeshiva and North London and Manchester.
The trustees of this and Manchester. The trustees of this charity are proudly Jewish and they are members of the Orthodox Jewish community. They are concerned about what is happening to the fellow Jewish young men, boys, and I think we should respect that concern in considering how we approach the whole issue of these yeshivas. I will speak at greater length in the next group about what I and Baroness Morris think we should do in order to make sure that these young men get the education they deserve, which they are not doing at the which they are not doing at the moment, and their experience is -- and that their experience is properly safeguarded.
They would not describe their own education and their own lives in that way. I think our starting point should be that as with any school, any community, there is a risk to children if we don't protect them in an orderly way in the way that we should. I'm not opposed to this community being able to continue to educate in its own faith. Why wouldn't we wish it to do that? When we allow any other faith to the same. But that is already possible.
There are already registered schools where parents can sound -- send their children. It's not the case of if you close down the yeshivas, no one can have a faith school based in this FA. What I do have a problem with is the yeshiva. This is where I oppose amendment 427C and my argument for it is very straightforward. If you were there at the age of eight -- if you were there and -- if you were there at eight in the morning and leave out Sue -- at six, it's not the school.
It is not easy and there's an element of compromise. But what I heard from people that I've spoken to so far is that will welcome the bill, we all want things to be regulated to protect children but not this. Not this religion, not this fate, not this group. I can't buy into that. I want to say that I think every child, including children in this community, deserve to be safeguarded and deserve to have a broad and balanced education. Unless you register it, I can't see how it happens.
Where I think the debate comes is about the nature of the registration and the consultation with the community. And I would absolutely urge the Minister, as I know she will have done already, as Baroness Barran spoke about as well, I would not want to support anything that excluded children from this community not to be safeguarded in the way that children from all other communities are.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I rise to support what my noble friend Baroness Morris has just friend Baroness Morris has just ... I'm ... I'm familiar ... I'm familiar with ... I'm familiar with this ... I'm familiar with this community and I admire a great deal of what they do but I'm very concerned about they do but I'm very concerned about what is happening to some of the boys in this community. I share the boys in this community.
I share the concern but it's not only on the meetings I have had with Baroness Morris with some of the young men Morris with some of the young men who have been through these who have been through these institutions, but also with the very, I think, good charity which is very, I think, good charity which is called Nahamu, which is concerned about the abuses of children which are taking place in these particular are taking place in these particular types of yeshiva and North London and Manchester.
The trustees of this and Manchester. The trustees of this charity are proudly Jewish and they are members of the Orthodox Jewish community. They are concerned about what is happening to the fellow Jewish young men, boys, and I think we should respect that concern in considering how we approach the whole issue of these yeshivas. I will speak at greater length in the next group about what I and Baroness Morris think we should do in order to make sure that these young men get the education they deserve, which they are not doing at the which they are not doing at the moment, and their experience is -- and that their experience is properly safeguarded.
12:28
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
I rise to support the amendment in the name of the Right Reverend Prelate Bishop of Manchester, but Lewis and Lord Glasman. To close 36, the amendment seeks to ensure that institutions which provide only religious instruction alongside guaranteed out-of-school education are not wrongly categorised as
12:29
Lord Marks of Hale (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Marks of Hale (Conservative)
independent educational institutions under this bill. Education in this under this bill. Education in this country has never been one size fits all state-run system. Homeschooling all state-run system. Homeschooling remains every parent's legal right. One community, however, has been singled out by clause 36, and that singled out by clause 36, and that is the Orthodox Jewish unity. It's boys attend yeshivas which are boys attend yeshivas which are supervised religious settings alongside receiving homeschooling. As one professor remarked about the As one professor remarked about the bill's intentions which in its bill's intentions which in its supplemented document almost exclusively singled out that that exclusively singled out that that community is that it's fine to be Jewish in the UK in 2025 as long as Jewish in the UK in 2025 as long as you are not to Jewish.
-- too. That you are not to Jewish. -- too. That should not be. Yeshivas are not schools and they cannot become schools. Their religious spaces schools. Their religious spaces operating alongside homeschooling with an entirely different purpose. with an entirely different purpose. There are settings where young men engage deeply with their heritage, develop their spiritual and ethical character and absorb the wisdom and traditions of the Jewish, rabbinic copiers. -- corpeas. This is different to teaching subjects like geography and history.
Inculcating one's children into the lift faith must be an immersive experience. That is what yeshivas are all about. This is also why they are so central to our faith community. Yeshivas operate as supervised spaces with robust safeguarding and health and safety arrangements in place. They allow sufficient and flexible breaks to enable attendees to continue their homeschooling alongside yeshiva. Yeshivas are not illegal schools, they are not schools at all. They operate alongside homeschooling arrangements and the children there do not have access to television, smart phones, video It makes the days longer and more suitable for homeschooling.
For the horrendous community, the home in the synagogue play a large and stable role with education and communal life of these children. A three pronged model once widespread three pronged model once widespread across the UK. Yeshivas maintain robust safeguarding measures and provide safe and supportive environments where students thrive with mentorship, P interaction, and structured learning. Graduates go on to contribute significantly to a bustling social and economic community. To reclassify yeshivas as independent institutions with simply undermine their purpose and force them to close.
It can even leave many children without the structure, support or space for their religious life, and it would do great damage to thriving contributing faith community. Some critics claim Orthodox communities failed to beach basic skills, that comes from antiquated lobbyists, not educational charities. Engaged with the bill about child welfare, it should teach us to listen to small minority voices and not only to those most powerful and vocal. Humanist UK are entitled to their views, but Orthodox Jews are entitled to their faith.
In reality, much work is underway to strengthen homeschooling, standards and resources. I therefore urge the noble Lord the Minister to accept this amendment so that yeshivas are recognised for what they are, faith spaces operating alongside home education and not forced into a category in which they do not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jewish. In support of Amendment 451 in the name of Lord Storey, perhaps he the name of Lord Storey, perhaps he will introduce it when he winds up will introduce it when he winds up from the frontbench. What I have to say is probably relevant to the wider aspects of this debate. I am a patron of humanist UK. I have patron of humanist UK. I have listened to children speaking about the unregistered schools that they the unregistered schools that they went to of all faiths.
And of course, this is only about some schools. Nevertheless, I was very schools. Nevertheless, I was very struck by what they had to say about the paucity of the curriculum. Often the paucity of the curriculum. Often the enforced dogma of what was taught. Sometimes abuse and taught. Sometimes abuse and sometimes in very antisocial, antidemocratic ethos. This doesn't antidemocratic ethos. This doesn't represent all faith schools at all, but those children themselves were but those children themselves were not alone. I do think, in short, we not alone.
I do think, in short, we need to get a grip on unregistered need to get a grip on unregistered schools, especially as in Lord Storey's amendment in the case of children for whom education has not been working well. So, I very much look forward to my noble friend the Ministers explanation of how we can Ministers explanation of how we can navigate this real problem in the navigate this real problem in the free and diverse society we live in as we must navigate it as not all schools are good.
-- too. That you are not to Jewish. -- too. That should not be. Yeshivas are not schools and they cannot become schools. Their religious spaces schools. Their religious spaces operating alongside homeschooling with an entirely different purpose. with an entirely different purpose. There are settings where young men engage deeply with their heritage, develop their spiritual and ethical character and absorb the wisdom and traditions of the Jewish, rabbinic copiers. -- corpeas. This is different to teaching subjects like geography and history.
Inculcating one's children into the lift faith must be an immersive experience. That is what yeshivas are all about. This is also why they are so central to our faith community. Yeshivas operate as supervised spaces with robust safeguarding and health and safety arrangements in place. They allow sufficient and flexible breaks to enable attendees to continue their homeschooling alongside yeshiva. Yeshivas are not illegal schools, they are not schools at all. They operate alongside homeschooling arrangements and the children there do not have access to television, smart phones, video It makes the days longer and more suitable for homeschooling.
For the horrendous community, the home in the synagogue play a large and stable role with education and communal life of these children. A three pronged model once widespread three pronged model once widespread across the UK. Yeshivas maintain robust safeguarding measures and provide safe and supportive environments where students thrive with mentorship, P interaction, and structured learning. Graduates go on to contribute significantly to a bustling social and economic community. To reclassify yeshivas as independent institutions with simply undermine their purpose and force them to close.
It can even leave many children without the structure, support or space for their religious life, and it would do great damage to thriving contributing faith community. Some critics claim Orthodox communities failed to beach basic skills, that comes from antiquated lobbyists, not educational charities. Engaged with the bill about child welfare, it should teach us to listen to small minority voices and not only to those most powerful and vocal. Humanist UK are entitled to their views, but Orthodox Jews are entitled to their faith.
In reality, much work is underway to strengthen homeschooling, standards and resources. I therefore urge the noble Lord the Minister to accept this amendment so that yeshivas are recognised for what they are, faith spaces operating alongside home education and not forced into a category in which they do not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jewish. In support of Amendment 451 in the name of Lord Storey, perhaps he the name of Lord Storey, perhaps he will introduce it when he winds up will introduce it when he winds up from the frontbench. What I have to say is probably relevant to the wider aspects of this debate. I am a patron of humanist UK. I have patron of humanist UK. I have listened to children speaking about the unregistered schools that they the unregistered schools that they went to of all faiths.
And of course, this is only about some schools. Nevertheless, I was very schools. Nevertheless, I was very struck by what they had to say about the paucity of the curriculum. Often the paucity of the curriculum. Often the enforced dogma of what was taught. Sometimes abuse and taught. Sometimes abuse and sometimes in very antisocial, antidemocratic ethos. This doesn't antidemocratic ethos. This doesn't represent all faith schools at all, but those children themselves were but those children themselves were not alone. I do think, in short, we not alone.
I do think, in short, we need to get a grip on unregistered need to get a grip on unregistered schools, especially as in Lord Storey's amendment in the case of children for whom education has not been working well. So, I very much look forward to my noble friend the Ministers explanation of how we can Ministers explanation of how we can navigate this real problem in the navigate this real problem in the free and diverse society we live in as we must navigate it as not all schools are good.
12:35
12:36
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
I understood right, they are concerned around whether these concerned around whether these pupils are being self. Now, if you pupils are being self. Now, if you look at the amendments, it says where the institution demonstrates local authority that it provides the local authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures. And that is pretty important, because if it didn't, I would be joining those it didn't, I would be joining those who want to have this amendment, but the fact that these particular groups that it is wrong to call them groups that it is wrong to call them schools, it is wrong to provide for education, the only thing provided is in homeschooling, and in terms of safeguarding, the amendment is very clear that the local authority is satisfied with safeguarding measures being in place.
So, those arguments being in place. So, those arguments being in place. So, those arguments for me fall away because that is around whether it is sufficient safeguarding for these particular safeguarding for these particular pupils, and because the amendment is quite sensitive in reality, I was not going to speak to it or support it. Now I have had the arguments, I am persuaded that it actually answers the question, and therefore, I am bound to support this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
particular amendment. I want to speak to this group amendments about the poorly
So, those arguments being in place. So, those arguments being in place. So, those arguments for me fall away because that is around whether it is sufficient safeguarding for these particular safeguarding for these particular pupils, and because the amendment is quite sensitive in reality, I was not going to speak to it or support it. Now I have had the arguments, I am persuaded that it actually answers the question, and therefore, I am bound to support this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
particular amendment. I want to speak to this group amendments about the poorly
12:36
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Spielman (Conservative)
understood world of unregistered provision, including the types of religious institution that have had a lot of discussion around it already. But also, looking more broadly, and I do support to Lord Lucas's amendments. 47 and 40 7B in particular. More broadly, clause 36 is a constructive attempt to put sensible controls in place around the oversight of educational provision for children outside schools and colleges. It creates a wider category of independent educational institution to supplement the narrower concept of an independent school, and this is a complicated and messy landscape.
The strands do overlap. There is the eternity of provisions. Most often for children with severe behavioural problems. There is a huge patchwork of provision there. Some of it has a level of quality control, but much of it is not, as there are not neat cut-offs. The school puts to members cut-offs. The school puts to members in the garden for one afternoon a week. That would be best viewed as part of the schools educational model, and the school would be accountable for the experience.
But if those same children are early attending schools, it is unrealistic to ignore the fact that the gardens become the children's main source of education. A complete education, and that school registration has become a fixture in, perhaps to avoid recording and exclusion. And it is often assumed that alternative provision is or should be a brief stint to prepare a child for reintegration into mainstream school. The reality is that very few children who move into alternative provision will successfully reintegrate. Hardly any such children take their GCSE in a mains dream school.
So it needs to be seen as a mode of education, not just as respite care. Then there is provision for children with psychological problems such as school refusals. Unregistered provision often born out of provisions, and if that is part of a plan to acclimatise to a suitable school, direct oversight may be overkill. But if it becomes a deaf actor permanent placement, it has become that child's main place of education. And it needs to work the same standards as other schools. Then it has been looking at children who have been educated.
And of course, parents are entitled to home educate, and they are part of around education. But if an organisation is running five different programs, one each day, the child attends all of them, and that point, the reality is that the organisation is best seen as having the characteristics of a school or an independent institution. Taking responsibility when parents are not present for a large part of the week. It is hard to see why such an entity should sit outside the legal framework that protects children's education.
And protects children's education. And finally, I would like to talk about illegal schools. It is depressing that illegal schools exist. It is even more depressing that some of them operate knowingly and intentionally outside the law. Often has a small budget to investigate illegal schools and to warn those that are outside the law that they must register with the Department of education. But it has also prosecuted pieties of school, at least one of them twice, and I don't think any of those prosecutions were related to Jewish affiliated institution.
Current legislation is not equipped to deal with bad faith not equipped to deal with bad faith organisers. It dates back to a time where it was unimaginable that a school admitted to register wouldn't do so when it was pointed out. And it has been extraordinarily easy for operators to sidestep the law. The kind of organisation where an operator teaching the same groups in operator teaching the same groups in the mornings in one location, and passing them to another location to be taught in the afternoon may claim that they are separate institutions than that neither reaches the threshold to be considered as a school, but clearly, the reality is that it is a single school.
That is why support for amendment 427B, there needs to be a sensible ability to take holistic perspective so that avoidance doesn't really happen. And there are institutions, and we have had a lot of debate, who rely on the fact that children are not being taught subjects like English and mathematics but only an exclusively religious programme to say that they are not schools. Now, it is a shocking fact that there are British citizens reaching adult hood without the most basic education that they need to take their full part in British society in the workplace if they choose as adults.
Now, they may not choose but to pre-emptively take away their capacity to do that should concern us deeply. And it does seem unreasonable that an institution that is part of such a model should want to be outside the scope of any meaningful scrutiny. And we know from any previous cases that, sadly, a strong religious affiliation is not a guarantee that children will be completely protected from the kinds of harm that can come from adults inflicting on them.
And I think it is worrying that so many people don't want to acknowledge or discuss this problem intentionally. I think there is widespread hesitancy to venture into sensitive areas linked to faith or ethnic city. We have seen this with other issues arising recently as well, and I can see the temptation of offering an opt out, and yet, I also know that the better part is to carry on working to try to find models that do a better job of reconciling the desires of the faith group and the important rights of children.
I know that many of my noble colleagues here, Lord Nash, Baroness Morgan, they all worked hard in their time in government to try and find those next steps, those better accommodations, and opt out is just not sensible or workable, and the point that this country has become simply a patchwork of self segregated communities cut off from one another, there won't be much of a nation left. And I will note that there is an evolving picture internationally around the same issues that we have been seeing in schools in England.
As chief, I talk to my counterparts which are seeing parallel trends. This is something that needs discussing not just domestic but internationally. And I believe that it is impossible and undesirable to try to make tidy regulatory categories covering every kind of provision outside school. They quickly become obsolete as would any micro-precise thresholds. So overall, this extension of scope is important and justified but it is also important that the regulations made are clear and well understood, that enforcement is adequately funded with enough resource for Ofsted to carry on its investigate rework and the DfE to act where it should, and does also have to be a high level of transparency about the work to help stave off, pre-empt attempts to brand this difficult work as biased or unfair, and we must carry on doing all that we can to make the intrinsically knotty subject matter here fully discussed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I raised to support very strongly amendment 427 C and pay tribute to
The strands do overlap. There is the eternity of provisions. Most often for children with severe behavioural problems. There is a huge patchwork of provision there. Some of it has a level of quality control, but much of it is not, as there are not neat cut-offs. The school puts to members cut-offs. The school puts to members in the garden for one afternoon a week. That would be best viewed as part of the schools educational model, and the school would be accountable for the experience.
But if those same children are early attending schools, it is unrealistic to ignore the fact that the gardens become the children's main source of education. A complete education, and that school registration has become a fixture in, perhaps to avoid recording and exclusion. And it is often assumed that alternative provision is or should be a brief stint to prepare a child for reintegration into mainstream school. The reality is that very few children who move into alternative provision will successfully reintegrate. Hardly any such children take their GCSE in a mains dream school.
So it needs to be seen as a mode of education, not just as respite care. Then there is provision for children with psychological problems such as school refusals. Unregistered provision often born out of provisions, and if that is part of a plan to acclimatise to a suitable school, direct oversight may be overkill. But if it becomes a deaf actor permanent placement, it has become that child's main place of education. And it needs to work the same standards as other schools. Then it has been looking at children who have been educated.
And of course, parents are entitled to home educate, and they are part of around education. But if an organisation is running five different programs, one each day, the child attends all of them, and that point, the reality is that the organisation is best seen as having the characteristics of a school or an independent institution. Taking responsibility when parents are not present for a large part of the week. It is hard to see why such an entity should sit outside the legal framework that protects children's education.
And protects children's education. And finally, I would like to talk about illegal schools. It is depressing that illegal schools exist. It is even more depressing that some of them operate knowingly and intentionally outside the law. Often has a small budget to investigate illegal schools and to warn those that are outside the law that they must register with the Department of education. But it has also prosecuted pieties of school, at least one of them twice, and I don't think any of those prosecutions were related to Jewish affiliated institution.
Current legislation is not equipped to deal with bad faith not equipped to deal with bad faith organisers. It dates back to a time where it was unimaginable that a school admitted to register wouldn't do so when it was pointed out. And it has been extraordinarily easy for operators to sidestep the law. The kind of organisation where an operator teaching the same groups in operator teaching the same groups in the mornings in one location, and passing them to another location to be taught in the afternoon may claim that they are separate institutions than that neither reaches the threshold to be considered as a school, but clearly, the reality is that it is a single school.
That is why support for amendment 427B, there needs to be a sensible ability to take holistic perspective so that avoidance doesn't really happen. And there are institutions, and we have had a lot of debate, who rely on the fact that children are not being taught subjects like English and mathematics but only an exclusively religious programme to say that they are not schools. Now, it is a shocking fact that there are British citizens reaching adult hood without the most basic education that they need to take their full part in British society in the workplace if they choose as adults.
Now, they may not choose but to pre-emptively take away their capacity to do that should concern us deeply. And it does seem unreasonable that an institution that is part of such a model should want to be outside the scope of any meaningful scrutiny. And we know from any previous cases that, sadly, a strong religious affiliation is not a guarantee that children will be completely protected from the kinds of harm that can come from adults inflicting on them.
And I think it is worrying that so many people don't want to acknowledge or discuss this problem intentionally. I think there is widespread hesitancy to venture into sensitive areas linked to faith or ethnic city. We have seen this with other issues arising recently as well, and I can see the temptation of offering an opt out, and yet, I also know that the better part is to carry on working to try to find models that do a better job of reconciling the desires of the faith group and the important rights of children.
I know that many of my noble colleagues here, Lord Nash, Baroness Morgan, they all worked hard in their time in government to try and find those next steps, those better accommodations, and opt out is just not sensible or workable, and the point that this country has become simply a patchwork of self segregated communities cut off from one another, there won't be much of a nation left. And I will note that there is an evolving picture internationally around the same issues that we have been seeing in schools in England.
As chief, I talk to my counterparts which are seeing parallel trends. This is something that needs discussing not just domestic but internationally. And I believe that it is impossible and undesirable to try to make tidy regulatory categories covering every kind of provision outside school. They quickly become obsolete as would any micro-precise thresholds. So overall, this extension of scope is important and justified but it is also important that the regulations made are clear and well understood, that enforcement is adequately funded with enough resource for Ofsted to carry on its investigate rework and the DfE to act where it should, and does also have to be a high level of transparency about the work to help stave off, pre-empt attempts to brand this difficult work as biased or unfair, and we must carry on doing all that we can to make the intrinsically knotty subject matter here fully discussed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I raised to support very strongly amendment 427 C and pay tribute to
12:46
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Hoey (Non-affiliated)
amendment 427 C and pay tribute to the two opening speeches from the Right Reverend Prelate and Lord Glasman. All the speeches they have shown alight on what I think many people in the country are not aware of. As a councillor in Hackney many years ago, I knew this community and what I thought was particularly interesting in Lord Glasman's speech was he was able to explain how much effort has gone into improving the whole question of safeguarding. That is something we are all very concerned about in any school.
What this issue is about for me very clearly is that yeshiva are not schools. They are no more a school than the Sunday school I went to for many years as a youngster. Nothing to do with the church, it was a separate Sunday school set up by some very nice people in the countryside and I went every Sunday afternoon for many, many years. That was not at school in the sense of education. It was about religion, it was about understanding the history of Christianity and all of those kinds of things.
I can see exactly what that yeshiva schools are doing. I think perhaps the government... Does seem that under clause 35 of the bill, they will be regulated as if they were schools -- clause. That is wrong. We know what goes on the. It is for young men who engage with their heritage and build their spiritual and ethical character. All of that goes on. The noble Baroness Morris mentioned about some of the young men she had spoken to who were unhappy or whatever about what had happened.
I'm sure if we went round many of our schools and spoke to young men about what was going on in their school, we would find, always find somebody who has a real problem. But that doesn't mean that what is happening overall, there is anything wrong with it. It seems to me there has been very little - and maybe I'm wrong and the noble Lady the Minister can tell me I'm wrong - but there didn't seem to be any real prior engagement before the bill was drafted with the community, and the central role that that yeshiva schools play in the communities.
I mean, was there any real discussion? It seems to me, listening to what has been said, we have got underlining support for safeguarding. Surely, this would have been something that if there had been time spent in the Department talking to the community, knowing what was going on in those schools, talking to the local authorities about what they see, then this could have been solved in a way without bringing, without having to have an amendment like this, without having to go through this whole debate.
It could have been solved by a bit of common sense, goodwill and people sitting... There is sensible, practical solution that will allow the yeshiva schools to stay open. I call it a school but I'm not implying there are school as I said earlier. There are not a school in the sense that we know what a school is. We can address any concerns that there still are about safeguarding and the links with home education. We must try and settle this otherwise.
We will see all of those closing and then we will be left with a very, very much more difficult situation to handle. I would urge the noble Lady recognising just how many people feel strongly about this. This is something that really needs to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
looked at. I had not participated speaking until the next group but I declare an interest because I'm a senior an interest because I'm a senior research fellow at Oxford University. A number of peers have
What this issue is about for me very clearly is that yeshiva are not schools. They are no more a school than the Sunday school I went to for many years as a youngster. Nothing to do with the church, it was a separate Sunday school set up by some very nice people in the countryside and I went every Sunday afternoon for many, many years. That was not at school in the sense of education. It was about religion, it was about understanding the history of Christianity and all of those kinds of things.
I can see exactly what that yeshiva schools are doing. I think perhaps the government... Does seem that under clause 35 of the bill, they will be regulated as if they were schools -- clause. That is wrong. We know what goes on the. It is for young men who engage with their heritage and build their spiritual and ethical character. All of that goes on. The noble Baroness Morris mentioned about some of the young men she had spoken to who were unhappy or whatever about what had happened.
I'm sure if we went round many of our schools and spoke to young men about what was going on in their school, we would find, always find somebody who has a real problem. But that doesn't mean that what is happening overall, there is anything wrong with it. It seems to me there has been very little - and maybe I'm wrong and the noble Lady the Minister can tell me I'm wrong - but there didn't seem to be any real prior engagement before the bill was drafted with the community, and the central role that that yeshiva schools play in the communities.
I mean, was there any real discussion? It seems to me, listening to what has been said, we have got underlining support for safeguarding. Surely, this would have been something that if there had been time spent in the Department talking to the community, knowing what was going on in those schools, talking to the local authorities about what they see, then this could have been solved in a way without bringing, without having to have an amendment like this, without having to go through this whole debate.
It could have been solved by a bit of common sense, goodwill and people sitting... There is sensible, practical solution that will allow the yeshiva schools to stay open. I call it a school but I'm not implying there are school as I said earlier. There are not a school in the sense that we know what a school is. We can address any concerns that there still are about safeguarding and the links with home education. We must try and settle this otherwise.
We will see all of those closing and then we will be left with a very, very much more difficult situation to handle. I would urge the noble Lady recognising just how many people feel strongly about this. This is something that really needs to be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
looked at. I had not participated speaking until the next group but I declare an interest because I'm a senior an interest because I'm a senior research fellow at Oxford University. A number of peers have
12:50
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
University. A number of peers have just entered into this human right without fully appreciating the impact of it. Firstly, in relation to the institution, and that in the amendment how it's referred to, it's referred to as an institution. I wonder if the noble Lady the Minister can outline if this amendment were to be accepted, where it sits with the other out-of-school settings. I don't think these are charities because you would be already under safeguarding responsibilities as a charity.
Could there be good unintended consequences of the amendment that we taken out of school setting and bring it into the safeguarding world bring it into the safeguarding world and DBS cheques -- checks? It sometimes put into debate as if religious belief is an unlimited right. I think it is important to remember that children have freedom to religion or belief. Children do, and this is the very difficult word, and it's also in the Christian context and other faith context and even I think in some atheist traditions, of trying to immune a child from knowledge so they never choose a different type of Jewishness or a different religion for themselves.
I do hope that whatever situation we end up in with regard to these particular schools, that we bear in mind that these children have a freedom of religion or belief and should have an education that enables them to exercise that right fully. I do hope that will be part of the considerations and the engagement with the community as we come to a position on these institutions. As it is accepted in the amendment, they are institutions. Not some kind of faith space.
They are an institution of some category.
Could there be good unintended consequences of the amendment that we taken out of school setting and bring it into the safeguarding world bring it into the safeguarding world and DBS cheques -- checks? It sometimes put into debate as if religious belief is an unlimited right. I think it is important to remember that children have freedom to religion or belief. Children do, and this is the very difficult word, and it's also in the Christian context and other faith context and even I think in some atheist traditions, of trying to immune a child from knowledge so they never choose a different type of Jewishness or a different religion for themselves.
I do hope that whatever situation we end up in with regard to these particular schools, that we bear in mind that these children have a freedom of religion or belief and should have an education that enables them to exercise that right fully. I do hope that will be part of the considerations and the engagement with the community as we come to a position on these institutions. As it is accepted in the amendment, they are institutions. Not some kind of faith space.
They are an institution of some category.
12:52
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I would start by saying that I was the head of a Church of England primary school. My daughter went to a Jewish school and I'm conscious that in my home city of Liverpool, one third of schools are faith schools. I want to reflect on what various peers have said and I want to speak very carefully because I'm still considering everything that's been said. I found it at times, if I'm to be honest, quite challenging.
Let me deal with an issue that which I don't find challenging, that is a man .451. -- Amendment 451. Children who are suspended from school, the school has responsibility for them. Pupils who are permanently excluded from school, the local authority has responsibility for them. Although often secondary schools which have pupil referral units are often able to put those students were suspended into a referral unit, and I have been and visited many of them and been absolutely astounded, impressed with how they have supported that particular student and the instances of explosion, permanent exclusions are now very limited.
Often, let's remember that young people who are permanently excluded from school permanently excluded from school often have severe behavioural issues, which perhaps could have been picked up when they were younger, perhaps they could have been supported in a different way. But any of them have severe behavioural problems. Many of them, quite a high percentage - I think it quite a high percentage - I think it is certainly over 80% - have special needs. They are the very young people who should not be excluded from school.
They should be in school. But clearly schools have a right to teach, pupils have a right to learn. So when they are excluded from school, local authorities will often put them into what we call alternative provision. And there are two types of alternative provision. There is the alternative provision which is registered. That means it is inspected from time to time by Ofsted. Again, I visited two alternative providers and have been incredibly impressed at what I've seen. Many local authorities choose not to put permanently excluded pupils into a registered provider but into an unregistered provider.
Why? Because it is much, much cheaper. That's no way to treat a young person. No way at all. And if you look at some of those unregistered providers, they don't keep a register, the young person comes and goes, there is no proper qualifications, teaching staff, etc etc. That's not to say, as I've mentioned in debates, that there are some unregistered providers were very good. But still, that is no way to treat a young people -- young person.
This amendment is very simple. All it says is that any alternative provider, i.e. Those schools, those units... And when we talk about a school, we are talking about a school of 20 pupils. Those schools should be registered so we know there is a qualified staff, qualified support, quality learning for those people's, and all the things we expect take place -- those pupils. And we also know that there will be from time to time Ofsted reports on those schools.
I've looked at many of those Ofsted reports and have been incredibly impressed by the work those alternative providers do. That is a simple request that we should not allow the most vulnerable children, young people in our society to be treated in this way. They have the right to go to a proper institution, proper school. And now I come to the other amendments. I agree probably... Not probably. I agree with Baroness Morris. Look, I want children, young people to have an education, whether it's on a school or in some cases at home, which is broad and balanced, which equips them for life, which they enjoy, which brings out the best qualities in that young person.
I do not want, and I remember several years ago, Baroness Berridge came to me with a discussion about particular faith school, particular religious school, a Christian school actually, which was where the pupils were treated in quite a challenging way. One boy, for example, happened to tell the school that he was gay so he was pushing a cupboard and locked in a cupboard until he came out and announced he was not gay. That school I think employed its own Ofsted inspection regime.
Not Ofsted, its own inspection regimes. And because it had its own inspection regimes, that company
**** Possible New Speaker ****
particularly... I'm not sure if the noble Lord is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm not sure if the noble Lord is remembering the description accurately. accurately.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I only raise it because it was shocking. It was a schooling shocking. It was a schooling situation where young people were not able to be themselves and unable not able to be themselves and unable I respect different religions and as I say, my daughter goes to a Jewish I say, my daughter goes to a Jewish school and at that school there Hebrew lessons, the children are Hebrew lessons, the children are taken out for various times and there is a whole range of different faiths in that school.
The children's faces respected and opportunities for them to develop an understanding of faith happens and that is all good and positive. In terms of the issue that I am still terms of the issue that I am still thinking about, the amendment has been moved, and I personally do not I think, have a problem or an issue with that particular faith, whatever it is, bringing up children and people in that faith. What I want to see is that those children and young people still have schooling, schooling which is registered and inspected and I think that is all as a society we should ask for.
And anything which does not carry on the tradition that we in this country, which by the way is probably, I think, one of the most successful multicultural, multifaith nations in the world, any situation which does not develop what we believe in, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
think we need to legislate against. I will keep my comments brief, I think we have had an excellent think we have had an excellent debate. On these benches, we do support the aims of this clause to
Let me deal with an issue that which I don't find challenging, that is a man .451. -- Amendment 451. Children who are suspended from school, the school has responsibility for them. Pupils who are permanently excluded from school, the local authority has responsibility for them. Although often secondary schools which have pupil referral units are often able to put those students were suspended into a referral unit, and I have been and visited many of them and been absolutely astounded, impressed with how they have supported that particular student and the instances of explosion, permanent exclusions are now very limited.
Often, let's remember that young people who are permanently excluded from school permanently excluded from school often have severe behavioural issues, which perhaps could have been picked up when they were younger, perhaps they could have been supported in a different way. But any of them have severe behavioural problems. Many of them, quite a high percentage - I think it quite a high percentage - I think it is certainly over 80% - have special needs. They are the very young people who should not be excluded from school.
They should be in school. But clearly schools have a right to teach, pupils have a right to learn. So when they are excluded from school, local authorities will often put them into what we call alternative provision. And there are two types of alternative provision. There is the alternative provision which is registered. That means it is inspected from time to time by Ofsted. Again, I visited two alternative providers and have been incredibly impressed at what I've seen. Many local authorities choose not to put permanently excluded pupils into a registered provider but into an unregistered provider.
Why? Because it is much, much cheaper. That's no way to treat a young person. No way at all. And if you look at some of those unregistered providers, they don't keep a register, the young person comes and goes, there is no proper qualifications, teaching staff, etc etc. That's not to say, as I've mentioned in debates, that there are some unregistered providers were very good. But still, that is no way to treat a young people -- young person.
This amendment is very simple. All it says is that any alternative provider, i.e. Those schools, those units... And when we talk about a school, we are talking about a school of 20 pupils. Those schools should be registered so we know there is a qualified staff, qualified support, quality learning for those people's, and all the things we expect take place -- those pupils. And we also know that there will be from time to time Ofsted reports on those schools.
I've looked at many of those Ofsted reports and have been incredibly impressed by the work those alternative providers do. That is a simple request that we should not allow the most vulnerable children, young people in our society to be treated in this way. They have the right to go to a proper institution, proper school. And now I come to the other amendments. I agree probably... Not probably. I agree with Baroness Morris. Look, I want children, young people to have an education, whether it's on a school or in some cases at home, which is broad and balanced, which equips them for life, which they enjoy, which brings out the best qualities in that young person.
I do not want, and I remember several years ago, Baroness Berridge came to me with a discussion about particular faith school, particular religious school, a Christian school actually, which was where the pupils were treated in quite a challenging way. One boy, for example, happened to tell the school that he was gay so he was pushing a cupboard and locked in a cupboard until he came out and announced he was not gay. That school I think employed its own Ofsted inspection regime.
Not Ofsted, its own inspection regimes. And because it had its own inspection regimes, that company
**** Possible New Speaker ****
particularly... I'm not sure if the noble Lord is
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm not sure if the noble Lord is remembering the description accurately. accurately.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I only raise it because it was shocking. It was a schooling shocking. It was a schooling situation where young people were not able to be themselves and unable not able to be themselves and unable I respect different religions and as I say, my daughter goes to a Jewish I say, my daughter goes to a Jewish school and at that school there Hebrew lessons, the children are Hebrew lessons, the children are taken out for various times and there is a whole range of different faiths in that school.
The children's faces respected and opportunities for them to develop an understanding of faith happens and that is all good and positive. In terms of the issue that I am still terms of the issue that I am still thinking about, the amendment has been moved, and I personally do not I think, have a problem or an issue with that particular faith, whatever it is, bringing up children and people in that faith. What I want to see is that those children and young people still have schooling, schooling which is registered and inspected and I think that is all as a society we should ask for.
And anything which does not carry on the tradition that we in this country, which by the way is probably, I think, one of the most successful multicultural, multifaith nations in the world, any situation which does not develop what we believe in, I
**** Possible New Speaker ****
think we need to legislate against. I will keep my comments brief, I think we have had an excellent think we have had an excellent debate. On these benches, we do support the aims of this clause to
13:02
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
support the aims of this clause to ensure that children learn in safe and regulated settings where they provide all or a majority of a child's education. In my brief comments, I do have a couple of technical points which I think might win the prize today for the most boring question asked of the Minister, but I wondered if the noble Lady could clarify a couple of things. I confess, I have tried to read and reread the bill and I still do not follow it.
In section 92 of the Education and Skills Act of 2008 which this clause amends, it includes institutions that offer part-time education within the definition of an independent educational institution. And I am just unclear what the status of those institutions will be in future and why they don't form part of the revised definition of the noble Lady wants to write, that is fine. I am sure there is a simple and obvious answer which I have missed. And also, the regulation making powers in the clause are much wider if I have understood them correctly than the 2008 act, some new section 92, subsection 3, C and D, seemed to give the Secretary of State unlimited flexibility to redefine full-time education without the proper scrutiny of Parliament and I suspect the noble Lady will tell me that this is using the affirmative procedure, but all of us know that that is very restricted scrutiny.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised the issue of unregistered alternative provision, which benefits to be clear, neither from safeguarding nor from educational oversight in his amendment 427. And it is extraordinary, as are the noble Lord's have reflected, that rather like unregulated provision, we take very vulnerable children and young people and put them in unregistered provision without any of the safeguards available. So why agree with him -- so I agree with him that we would have no unregistered provision but at a minimum, I think this also applies to amendment 451, we would have some safeguarding regulation of those settings even if children going there for a short period of time, as always the infamous Dave the car mechanic, where apparently some children spend time, lease there we should have appropriate safeguarding checks.
I am interested what the noble Lady thinks about that. Turning to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, all of whom have raised issues that can arise for children whose parents choose an educational path that aligns to their religious tradition, and the Minister and the whole House have heard very clearly today both sides of the argument, the concerns, the valid concerns I think, that have been raised by particular faith groups about the impact of the government's legislation on their communities, very eloquently put in particular by the Right Reverend Robert the Bishop of Oxford on the noble Lord who I promise we will still listen to him however much he speaks.
I close by wishing to align myself to my noble friend Baroness Morgan of Cotes, I think we want to retain what I think the noble Lord described as the precious tolerance that many of us including my own family have benefited from, from this country welcoming them. But also, ensuring that the rights of every child are upheld and I hope very much that the noble Baroness the Minister will put her not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
task. First of all, can I say to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
First of all, can I say to the noble Lady that she is right, those questions were very boring but nonetheless, I am sure important and I will write to the noble Lady to respond to those specific points. respond to those specific points. The rest of the debate however, was not boring but also important and I not boring but also important and I think, I hope I will be able to respond to the wide-ranging of issues that have been raised and the issues that have been raised and the conflicting positions that are part
In section 92 of the Education and Skills Act of 2008 which this clause amends, it includes institutions that offer part-time education within the definition of an independent educational institution. And I am just unclear what the status of those institutions will be in future and why they don't form part of the revised definition of the noble Lady wants to write, that is fine. I am sure there is a simple and obvious answer which I have missed. And also, the regulation making powers in the clause are much wider if I have understood them correctly than the 2008 act, some new section 92, subsection 3, C and D, seemed to give the Secretary of State unlimited flexibility to redefine full-time education without the proper scrutiny of Parliament and I suspect the noble Lady will tell me that this is using the affirmative procedure, but all of us know that that is very restricted scrutiny.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised the issue of unregistered alternative provision, which benefits to be clear, neither from safeguarding nor from educational oversight in his amendment 427. And it is extraordinary, as are the noble Lord's have reflected, that rather like unregulated provision, we take very vulnerable children and young people and put them in unregistered provision without any of the safeguards available. So why agree with him -- so I agree with him that we would have no unregistered provision but at a minimum, I think this also applies to amendment 451, we would have some safeguarding regulation of those settings even if children going there for a short period of time, as always the infamous Dave the car mechanic, where apparently some children spend time, lease there we should have appropriate safeguarding checks.
I am interested what the noble Lady thinks about that. Turning to the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas, all of whom have raised issues that can arise for children whose parents choose an educational path that aligns to their religious tradition, and the Minister and the whole House have heard very clearly today both sides of the argument, the concerns, the valid concerns I think, that have been raised by particular faith groups about the impact of the government's legislation on their communities, very eloquently put in particular by the Right Reverend Robert the Bishop of Oxford on the noble Lord who I promise we will still listen to him however much he speaks.
I close by wishing to align myself to my noble friend Baroness Morgan of Cotes, I think we want to retain what I think the noble Lord described as the precious tolerance that many of us including my own family have benefited from, from this country welcoming them. But also, ensuring that the rights of every child are upheld and I hope very much that the noble Baroness the Minister will put her not
**** Possible New Speaker ****
task. First of all, can I say to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
First of all, can I say to the noble Lady that she is right, those questions were very boring but nonetheless, I am sure important and I will write to the noble Lady to respond to those specific points. respond to those specific points. The rest of the debate however, was not boring but also important and I not boring but also important and I think, I hope I will be able to respond to the wide-ranging of issues that have been raised and the issues that have been raised and the conflicting positions that are part
13:08
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
conflicting positions that are part of what we need to wrestle with in taking this legislation forward. This group of amendments impact on clause 36 of the bill and concern which settings are and are not brought into the system of regulation found in Chapter one of part four of the Education and Skills Act 2008, it might be helpful I think if I first outline The clause contains as I say, the settings regulated by that framework, among other things, regulated settings are required to register with the Secretary of State and to be subject to regular inspection against prescribed standards.
At present, that framework applies to independent schools. Post 36 expands this framework further under this clause, settings will be required to... The secretary of state if they provide full-time education to 5 or more children of compulsory school age or one or more such child's with an EHCP or one that is looked after by a local authority, and this change will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into this well-established and effective regime. Typically, the settings impacted by this change will be those that operate during but not necessarily only during the school day.
And we will produce guidance to help those potentially impacted by this change understand what is expected by them. For understandable reasons, a significant part of this debate has focused around issues of children and I will respond to that but I will reiterate in doing that but I'm afraid the noble Lord is just wrong in suggesting that this is legislation aimed at, this measure is about ensuring that where there is a full-time education for children they will be registered and subject to regular inspections and standards, there has been concern amongst the community and I will respond to that now.
This measure does not suppose an inherent problem with the child being educated, or the quality of home education but it is about ensuring settings provide full-time education to children. On full-time education to children. On the basis of how we define full-time and engagement, as now we intend to produce guidance to assist people in understanding whether the education setting they were needs to register with the Secretary of State and it is likely that this guidance will be similar to our existing approach and therefore the starting point will be that settings operating during the day for more than 18 hours per week will be regulated and I very much doubt in response to the noble lady that she did attend Sunday school for 18 hours per week, in terms of that example.
There is, can I just also emphasise, that in expecting institutions operating for that length of hours to register, there is no requirement. In the independent school standards, in standards akin to those that we will bring forward for these institutions, for a setting to provide a secular education, there is no requirement for them to deliver for example, a curriculum. There is considerable flexibility provided around the curriculum, just to respond to 1 of the points made by the noble Lord.
The standards are well-established, minimum standards which already employ too many registered settings, that do not consider themselves to classically be schools. The regulatory regime gives Ministers flexibility to decide on which standards apply to different types of regulated setting and we will carefully consider options on the standards that will be used to regulate settings and in doing that I can assure noble Lord's, both that there has been considerable engagement with the community up to this point.
I have met with the Liaison Committee and my officials have had ongoing engagement with the community. My former colleague met with the community on these issues and we do undertake to continue that engagement as we clarify the nature of the regulations and the extent of those that will be included within it. But it is right, that full-time educational settings are registered and subject to regular inspection. This will lead to children who currently attend the settings learning in a regulated and safe setting which is subject to regular inspection and for that reason, we believe that clause 36 should form part of the bill and is an important improvement on the current situation, as has been recognised by several noble lords in this debate.
There are several amendments which seek to further change the application of this regulatory framework and I will turn to the details of those now. Both Amendment 4278 and 427C seek to exempt settings which provide religious instruction. The noble Lord, via Amendment 4278 appears to wish any setting which provides any form of religious instruction in addition to education elsewhere, to be exempt from the regime in the 2008 act, and the Right Reverend, in introducing Amendment 40 7C seeks to exempt settings which provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met, and can I just say at this point, and agreeing I think with the noble Lady Baroness Morgan, and others, that we are in this country, rightly tolerant of faith education, I remember the arguments that my noble friend had in defending that principle in the time when we served in the previous government and the Department for Education.
We have as a country, and we should be proud of them, many faith schools that operate and, that is a principle supported by subsequent successive governments and of course, in each of those governments we have seen support for the development of faith schools, not only for the protection of those that existed, so I hope that honourable lords believe that this is in some way or another an attack on a ability to deliver religious education either within a school setting or as a freedom for parents as part of their right to home educate their child.
This provision is about full-time education, not about the religious approach of the institution. But accepting therefore, either Amendment, would mean accepting a two tier system where some children receive an education which is potentially less safe and subject to less oversight than their peers, and I think that case was exemplified very clearly by the points made by the noble Lady. Purely because, the educational setting that they attend time, offers religious instruction to a greater or lesser degree. It is an important principle that settings whose hours of operation suggest that they are operating like a school, and providing all-around majority of a child's education majority of a child's education Clause 36 support that principle and although I understand the position of which the amendments are coming, is a 47, eight and 47, C would undermine that principle.
Turning to 47, be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas which he described as a technical that is an important, I can understand the point about it is an important anti-evasion measure whether concern is to ensure that settings cannot escape regulation by splitting provision across, for example several sites. Let me reassure the noble Lord Lucas and reassure the noble Lord Lucas and the noble Lady Spielman that the offence of operating without registration concerns institutional operating without registration.
So a single setting which is purported to be part-time but was making split provision to avoid registration, for example offering a morning and an afternoon session at different premises would likely be considered a single institution and be required to register. And clause 42 of the bill of course gives Ofsted stronger powers to investigate the complex and complex arrangements such as those. Both men and 47 and 451 concerning the regulation of alternative provision, education provided outside of mainstream or special school.
Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas seeks to bring all alternative provision into that system of regulation, which supplies at independent schools and 451 in the name of the noble Lord story seeks to prevent the use of local authorities of alternative provision which isn't registered. As I've already stated clause 36 concerns the regulation of full-time sittings, both alternative provision is in many ways a short-term or part-time arrangement. For that reason we do not believe it would be appropriate, or proportionate to apply this system of regulation which applies to independent schools to a non- full-time provider.
That doesn't mean that we don't recognise that there is an issue here. With regard to the noble Lord particular concern expressed in 451 it is already the case that local authorities should not commission alternative provision but has failed to register. Not least because the AU oration of a school is a criminal offence. In relation however to the broader points, including those made by Baroness Spielman. Do recognise concerns about inconsistent oversight of part-time non-school alternative provision and the risks that this poses to vulnerable children and that is why the government published a comprehensive package of reforms, last month to raise the standards across the sector.
These include new voluntary national standards supported by guidance to help local areas contain implementation ahead of future legislation to meet the standards mandatory. Under our plans, local authorities will also play a strengthened role in quality assuring provision against the standards. While schools remain responsible for ensuring placement meet individual needs. I will be more than happy to provide further information about those changes that we identified last month and the future intent there. Finally, in this group, amendment 4 68, tabled by Lord Lucas seeks to require the Secretary of State if requested to declare that an alternative system of education, when carefully followed is expected to constitute a system of suitable education, for most children.
As we have already discussed, at length, during this committee stage, the law is clear, that parents already have an option to educate their child otherwise than at school. That education doesn't need to be suitable to the age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs that the in the individual child may have. There is no formal criteria of legislation for suitable education beyond this, because each individual assessment must rest on a balance of factors for each child. Identifying whether education is suitable sits best with local authorities, who can make enquiries as to the education of individual children.
Amendment 468 would cut across that principle. It would remove the personalised approach that is inherent in the current system and for that reason I would hope the noble Lord would withdraw it. This group and this debate has concerned the regulation of full-time educational settings. The discussion has touched both on that principle and on the regulation of part-time settings which would be inappropriate to regulate as if they were full-time. I hope that reflecting on the discussion and bearing in mind the considerable discussions and engagement that has already happened and the commitment to continue that engagement, noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
... I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness for that extensive reply. Baroness for that extensive reply. To pick up on some of the issues in the debate. I entirely understand the debate. I entirely understand what the noble Baroness... Baroness Blackstone are saying. If children Blackstone are saying. If children are not receiving their entitlement in education, we need to be doing something about that. That is part
At present, that framework applies to independent schools. Post 36 expands this framework further under this clause, settings will be required to... The secretary of state if they provide full-time education to 5 or more children of compulsory school age or one or more such child's with an EHCP or one that is looked after by a local authority, and this change will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into this well-established and effective regime. Typically, the settings impacted by this change will be those that operate during but not necessarily only during the school day.
And we will produce guidance to help those potentially impacted by this change understand what is expected by them. For understandable reasons, a significant part of this debate has focused around issues of children and I will respond to that but I will reiterate in doing that but I'm afraid the noble Lord is just wrong in suggesting that this is legislation aimed at, this measure is about ensuring that where there is a full-time education for children they will be registered and subject to regular inspections and standards, there has been concern amongst the community and I will respond to that now.
This measure does not suppose an inherent problem with the child being educated, or the quality of home education but it is about ensuring settings provide full-time education to children. On full-time education to children. On the basis of how we define full-time and engagement, as now we intend to produce guidance to assist people in understanding whether the education setting they were needs to register with the Secretary of State and it is likely that this guidance will be similar to our existing approach and therefore the starting point will be that settings operating during the day for more than 18 hours per week will be regulated and I very much doubt in response to the noble lady that she did attend Sunday school for 18 hours per week, in terms of that example.
There is, can I just also emphasise, that in expecting institutions operating for that length of hours to register, there is no requirement. In the independent school standards, in standards akin to those that we will bring forward for these institutions, for a setting to provide a secular education, there is no requirement for them to deliver for example, a curriculum. There is considerable flexibility provided around the curriculum, just to respond to 1 of the points made by the noble Lord.
The standards are well-established, minimum standards which already employ too many registered settings, that do not consider themselves to classically be schools. The regulatory regime gives Ministers flexibility to decide on which standards apply to different types of regulated setting and we will carefully consider options on the standards that will be used to regulate settings and in doing that I can assure noble Lord's, both that there has been considerable engagement with the community up to this point.
I have met with the Liaison Committee and my officials have had ongoing engagement with the community. My former colleague met with the community on these issues and we do undertake to continue that engagement as we clarify the nature of the regulations and the extent of those that will be included within it. But it is right, that full-time educational settings are registered and subject to regular inspection. This will lead to children who currently attend the settings learning in a regulated and safe setting which is subject to regular inspection and for that reason, we believe that clause 36 should form part of the bill and is an important improvement on the current situation, as has been recognised by several noble lords in this debate.
There are several amendments which seek to further change the application of this regulatory framework and I will turn to the details of those now. Both Amendment 4278 and 427C seek to exempt settings which provide religious instruction. The noble Lord, via Amendment 4278 appears to wish any setting which provides any form of religious instruction in addition to education elsewhere, to be exempt from the regime in the 2008 act, and the Right Reverend, in introducing Amendment 40 7C seeks to exempt settings which provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met, and can I just say at this point, and agreeing I think with the noble Lady Baroness Morgan, and others, that we are in this country, rightly tolerant of faith education, I remember the arguments that my noble friend had in defending that principle in the time when we served in the previous government and the Department for Education.
We have as a country, and we should be proud of them, many faith schools that operate and, that is a principle supported by subsequent successive governments and of course, in each of those governments we have seen support for the development of faith schools, not only for the protection of those that existed, so I hope that honourable lords believe that this is in some way or another an attack on a ability to deliver religious education either within a school setting or as a freedom for parents as part of their right to home educate their child.
This provision is about full-time education, not about the religious approach of the institution. But accepting therefore, either Amendment, would mean accepting a two tier system where some children receive an education which is potentially less safe and subject to less oversight than their peers, and I think that case was exemplified very clearly by the points made by the noble Lady. Purely because, the educational setting that they attend time, offers religious instruction to a greater or lesser degree. It is an important principle that settings whose hours of operation suggest that they are operating like a school, and providing all-around majority of a child's education majority of a child's education Clause 36 support that principle and although I understand the position of which the amendments are coming, is a 47, eight and 47, C would undermine that principle.
Turning to 47, be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas which he described as a technical that is an important, I can understand the point about it is an important anti-evasion measure whether concern is to ensure that settings cannot escape regulation by splitting provision across, for example several sites. Let me reassure the noble Lord Lucas and reassure the noble Lord Lucas and the noble Lady Spielman that the offence of operating without registration concerns institutional operating without registration.
So a single setting which is purported to be part-time but was making split provision to avoid registration, for example offering a morning and an afternoon session at different premises would likely be considered a single institution and be required to register. And clause 42 of the bill of course gives Ofsted stronger powers to investigate the complex and complex arrangements such as those. Both men and 47 and 451 concerning the regulation of alternative provision, education provided outside of mainstream or special school.
Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas seeks to bring all alternative provision into that system of regulation, which supplies at independent schools and 451 in the name of the noble Lord story seeks to prevent the use of local authorities of alternative provision which isn't registered. As I've already stated clause 36 concerns the regulation of full-time sittings, both alternative provision is in many ways a short-term or part-time arrangement. For that reason we do not believe it would be appropriate, or proportionate to apply this system of regulation which applies to independent schools to a non- full-time provider.
That doesn't mean that we don't recognise that there is an issue here. With regard to the noble Lord particular concern expressed in 451 it is already the case that local authorities should not commission alternative provision but has failed to register. Not least because the AU oration of a school is a criminal offence. In relation however to the broader points, including those made by Baroness Spielman. Do recognise concerns about inconsistent oversight of part-time non-school alternative provision and the risks that this poses to vulnerable children and that is why the government published a comprehensive package of reforms, last month to raise the standards across the sector.
These include new voluntary national standards supported by guidance to help local areas contain implementation ahead of future legislation to meet the standards mandatory. Under our plans, local authorities will also play a strengthened role in quality assuring provision against the standards. While schools remain responsible for ensuring placement meet individual needs. I will be more than happy to provide further information about those changes that we identified last month and the future intent there. Finally, in this group, amendment 4 68, tabled by Lord Lucas seeks to require the Secretary of State if requested to declare that an alternative system of education, when carefully followed is expected to constitute a system of suitable education, for most children.
As we have already discussed, at length, during this committee stage, the law is clear, that parents already have an option to educate their child otherwise than at school. That education doesn't need to be suitable to the age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs that the in the individual child may have. There is no formal criteria of legislation for suitable education beyond this, because each individual assessment must rest on a balance of factors for each child. Identifying whether education is suitable sits best with local authorities, who can make enquiries as to the education of individual children.
Amendment 468 would cut across that principle. It would remove the personalised approach that is inherent in the current system and for that reason I would hope the noble Lord would withdraw it. This group and this debate has concerned the regulation of full-time educational settings. The discussion has touched both on that principle and on the regulation of part-time settings which would be inappropriate to regulate as if they were full-time. I hope that reflecting on the discussion and bearing in mind the considerable discussions and engagement that has already happened and the commitment to continue that engagement, noble Lord will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
... I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness for that extensive reply. Baroness for that extensive reply. To pick up on some of the issues in the debate. I entirely understand the debate. I entirely understand what the noble Baroness... Baroness Blackstone are saying. If children Blackstone are saying. If children are not receiving their entitlement in education, we need to be doing something about that. That is part
13:22
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lucas (Conservative)
of the basic contract and I understand it between the state and any education system, a child has a right. For whatever reason it isn't being provided that is not tolerable. But it is surely important for the government to important for the government to indicate, to others what way forward it favours. Is it preferring and I take, I hope I'm not leaping too far ahead, of my understanding where the government wants to save us up is it fair to say that, right, we would like to see them registered at schools, but we will make sure that the regulations that apply do not require them to violate their religious principles, in the way that they teach.
In other words, is the accommodation to be within that element of what we would, might normally require a school to provide education. So that our schools that are allowed to teach in a way that is consistent with the Torah and that is one way. The other way forward is that proposed by the Bishop and myself. I do not recognise the characterisation of the amendments, in the noble Baroness's reply. We are specifically saying that settings should be exempt which do not provide education.
Which only provide religious instruction. In other words a children's education has to happen somewhere else. There has to be another's place, another institution that is providing that education. That is why the religious space is not regarded as a school because there is another space that is regarded as home education, or at school. And if there is somewhere else that is regarded as providing that child's education why should he or she, or whatever, be regarded as a school to, because the function of education in school is being provided elsewhere.
I would firstly really like the noble Baroness as guidance on whether we are looking at some thing that, a structure, the aim is to take the achievers, the school and make it clear child's education is being provided. Whether that is the preferred way forward or whether we are looking at a structure which makes it possible for education that is consistent with the Torah to be provided within the regulated school. I really think we owe this community a clear way we owe this community a clear way forward.
Where do we need to get to, those of us who are there in support of them can say, you need to do this or, let's have a go at the government because they're asking too much. We can have a dialogue on this. We have a blank as to what the government's intentions are. That isn't satisfactory. I really hope the government will find it, if the noble Baroness wants to reply I understand, otherwise be very grateful if you could write to me, to give a clear view of what the government's preferred way forward is on this.
What is that opening offer. What would they like to see, because the bill as it is now is just destroying these communities. That isn't the impression as the noble Baroness said. For now I beg
**** Possible New Speaker ****
leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 427, a and B, not moved. In clause 36 amendment 4 27 BA
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Barran. I'm pleased to introduce the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm pleased to introduce the amendments in my name before we amendments in my name before we start the next group of amendments, I would like to make a couple of I would like to make a couple of points.. The House will have to adjourn before 2 PM, so that they adjourn before 2 PM, so that they can get the chamber ready for Oral can get the chamber ready for Oral Questions. Noble Lord who want to make the Whip very happy if Venables will speak very swiftly, so we can conclude this group of amendments conclude this group of amendments and by 2 PM.
If not I will have to adjourn mid group, because it is quite a huge group and then we will continue after Oral Questions, this
In other words, is the accommodation to be within that element of what we would, might normally require a school to provide education. So that our schools that are allowed to teach in a way that is consistent with the Torah and that is one way. The other way forward is that proposed by the Bishop and myself. I do not recognise the characterisation of the amendments, in the noble Baroness's reply. We are specifically saying that settings should be exempt which do not provide education.
Which only provide religious instruction. In other words a children's education has to happen somewhere else. There has to be another's place, another institution that is providing that education. That is why the religious space is not regarded as a school because there is another space that is regarded as home education, or at school. And if there is somewhere else that is regarded as providing that child's education why should he or she, or whatever, be regarded as a school to, because the function of education in school is being provided elsewhere.
I would firstly really like the noble Baroness as guidance on whether we are looking at some thing that, a structure, the aim is to take the achievers, the school and make it clear child's education is being provided. Whether that is the preferred way forward or whether we are looking at a structure which makes it possible for education that is consistent with the Torah to be provided within the regulated school. I really think we owe this community a clear way we owe this community a clear way forward.
Where do we need to get to, those of us who are there in support of them can say, you need to do this or, let's have a go at the government because they're asking too much. We can have a dialogue on this. We have a blank as to what the government's intentions are. That isn't satisfactory. I really hope the government will find it, if the noble Baroness wants to reply I understand, otherwise be very grateful if you could write to me, to give a clear view of what the government's preferred way forward is on this.
What is that opening offer. What would they like to see, because the bill as it is now is just destroying these communities. That isn't the impression as the noble Baroness said. For now I beg
**** Possible New Speaker ****
leave to withdraw. Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 427, a and B, not moved. In clause 36 amendment 4 27 BA
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Barran. I'm pleased to introduce the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm pleased to introduce the amendments in my name before we amendments in my name before we start the next group of amendments, I would like to make a couple of I would like to make a couple of points.. The House will have to adjourn before 2 PM, so that they adjourn before 2 PM, so that they can get the chamber ready for Oral can get the chamber ready for Oral Questions. Noble Lord who want to make the Whip very happy if Venables will speak very swiftly, so we can conclude this group of amendments conclude this group of amendments and by 2 PM.
If not I will have to adjourn mid group, because it is quite a huge group and then we will continue after Oral Questions, this
13:28
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Barran (Conservative)
continue after Oral Questions, this afternoon. May I also remind all noble Lords to be brief in their
**** Possible New Speaker ****
comments, in this group. Baroness Barran. Better start with an apology to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Better start with an apology to the Whips because my comments are a little detailed and they are quite little detailed and they are quite detailed amendments. I am still detailed amendments. I am still pleased to introduce them. Again, on these benches we support the aims of this clause to ensure that children this clause to ensure that children learn in a safe and regulated settings and illegal schools by the settings and illegal schools by the register or closedown. Those institutions that do not meet the independent school standards are required to do so in an effective way.
We have two sets of concerns in this area which I will try and set out. Firstly they lie with the apparent Secretary of State to regulate academies in multiple different ways, through the funding agreement, which the Minister, or agreement, which the Minister, or the former Minister, in the other place argued, in committee, in relation to clause 36 was relation to clause 36 was sufficient. Through the new powers of clause 49, which we have yet to debate and now the additional powers in clause 37.
Secondly, there are worries that reflect the details of the revised standards, when we set out regulations. Effectively independent schools are flying blind as to what these new obligations will be. Under section 94 of the 2008 Energy Act, the Secretary of State was authorised to make regulations describing standards in relation to specific matters. These regulations have always been bound proprietors of academies, as they are independent schools. Clause 36 of the bill introduces additional subsections in a section 94 of the 2008 Energy Act and these include a standard by reference to, whether or not the parameter of an independent education institution has regard to guidance issued a document published, by the Secretary of State, from time to time ,.".
Until we see the regulations that are proposed to be published in relation to that standard, we cannot see what the consequence of this change would be. So could the noble Baroness at the Minister clarify what if any new obligations as distinct from have obligations as distinct from have regard to in new guidance by the DfEE. It would be helpful if the government could be clear about the changes in the burdens on the proprietors of academies from what currently exists.
My amendment 4 29A removes these types of schools from removes these types of schools from Section 94 is proposed to be amended in relation to a proprietor which is a body of persons. It is not entirely clear what that expression is intended to mean. Academies trust and therefore single person body of persons that is possible therefore that the proposed amendment to the 2008 act is irrelevant to academy schools and if so, can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm this.
But the bill also includes the following wording, and I quote, a standard in relation to proprietor may be prescribed by reference in the case of a proprietor which is a body of persons to whether the Secretary of State is notified before a new person becomes involved in the general control and management of or assumes legal responsibility and accountability for the proprietor ,". It could be said that the members of the company limited by guarantee and or, its directors or persons who become involved in the general control and management of will assume legal response ability and accountability for the company limited by guarantee, namely the proprietor of the Academy school.
I did not draft the bill, I appreciate it is dense. One could argue that it is not applicable because the proprietor of an Academy school is not a body of persons, but it is important that we understand how the government thinks this should be interpreted and I hope the noble Baroness can cover this when she comes to close. My Amendment 48 removes academies from the scope of the amendments to section 118 of the 2008 Education and Skills Act. Under the new section 11 118 a, proposed to be introduced by the bill, I quote, the Secretary of State may suspend the registration of an independent educational institution if the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the independent educational institutions standards are not being met, and the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe that as a result one or more students of the institution will may be exposed to the risk of harm.
So my Amendment 4 to 8 seeks to confirm what we already know, mainly that the funding agreement gives the Secretary of State all the powers she needs to regulate academies. And I thought it was worth refreshing my memory and what it included in the last funding agreement, and it covers governance, the running of academies, finance and accounting, complaints, and termination among many other things. So I would have thought that would be sufficient for any Secretary of State. But as the noble Baroness the Minister knows, the concept of suspending the registration of a proprietor of an Academy is fraught with difficulty.
The funding agreement contains complex provisions relating to the termination of such an agreement. Our concern is that the practicalities involved in suspending the registration of an Academy proprietor, thus making it unlawful for the proprietor to continue to operate academies are unworkable. We believe these provisions should not apply to an Academy school but that the Secretary of State should rely on the provision in the funding agreements which give her ample powers of intervention. So it would be helpful if the noble Baroness the Minister could confirm that she agrees with me.
Turning to the other amendments in my name in this group, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House why the list of accepted institution set out in clause 36 does not include academies including free schools of course, does not include studio schools, given that the list does include 16 to 19 academies. I understand that they are directly accountable to the Secretary of State via the funding agreement but surely this is the case for 16 to 19 academies, too.
My Amendment 427 BA mirrors that put down by my honourable friend, which the Minister and the other place committed to addressing and writing but we have not been able to find his response. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this. At the risk of being repetitive, can the Minister explain what the problem is that the government is trying to solve in relation to academies with this clause. In case the government has not already thought this through and quantified it, I have put down amendments 431 a and 50 60 which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the educational institutions standards on schools of different types that are not maintained by the local authority before commencement of these changes.
And finally, my amendments 432BN43 IIIa relate to clause 39, subsection 2G which relates to the definition of a material change. Our concern is that there could be a simple change of use of a building or an addition of say, a bike shed which would be for student use which would need to be notified to the Secretary of State and again, can the noble Baroness the Minister explain if this applies to academies or only to feepaying schools. The former Minister in the other place when responding to my honourable friend on this point appeared to say it was the latter but I am not clear where this is made clear in the legislation itself.
Clause 39 links as I understand it, to clause 36 and academies are not accepted institutions unless of course the government sees the light and accepts my earlier amendment. So I had understood that they would be caught by this clause. Secondly, the Minister and the other place argued that one could not be sure that the new building of a private school was suitable for students. If this is the case, why does the government think that the school would be more likely to respect this legislation than that that already exists around health and safety and building regulations and I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, page 80, line 18, leave out line 18 and insert the 18, leave out line 18 and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. Amendment 432 4328 and 434 in my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 432 4328 and 434 in my name can to -- concern enforcement name can to -- concern enforcement provisions, these are critical in this Bill which seeks to address the harm caused by unregistered harm caused by unregistered educational settings. Let me begin by referring to the experience of a woman, a mother in Stamford Hill.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
comments, in this group. Baroness Barran. Better start with an apology to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Better start with an apology to the Whips because my comments are a little detailed and they are quite little detailed and they are quite detailed amendments. I am still detailed amendments. I am still pleased to introduce them. Again, on these benches we support the aims of this clause to ensure that children this clause to ensure that children learn in a safe and regulated settings and illegal schools by the settings and illegal schools by the register or closedown. Those institutions that do not meet the independent school standards are required to do so in an effective way.
We have two sets of concerns in this area which I will try and set out. Firstly they lie with the apparent Secretary of State to regulate academies in multiple different ways, through the funding agreement, which the Minister, or agreement, which the Minister, or the former Minister, in the other place argued, in committee, in relation to clause 36 was relation to clause 36 was sufficient. Through the new powers of clause 49, which we have yet to debate and now the additional powers in clause 37.
Secondly, there are worries that reflect the details of the revised standards, when we set out regulations. Effectively independent schools are flying blind as to what these new obligations will be. Under section 94 of the 2008 Energy Act, the Secretary of State was authorised to make regulations describing standards in relation to specific matters. These regulations have always been bound proprietors of academies, as they are independent schools. Clause 36 of the bill introduces additional subsections in a section 94 of the 2008 Energy Act and these include a standard by reference to, whether or not the parameter of an independent education institution has regard to guidance issued a document published, by the Secretary of State, from time to time ,.".
Until we see the regulations that are proposed to be published in relation to that standard, we cannot see what the consequence of this change would be. So could the noble Baroness at the Minister clarify what if any new obligations as distinct from have obligations as distinct from have regard to in new guidance by the DfEE. It would be helpful if the government could be clear about the changes in the burdens on the proprietors of academies from what currently exists.
My amendment 4 29A removes these types of schools from removes these types of schools from Section 94 is proposed to be amended in relation to a proprietor which is a body of persons. It is not entirely clear what that expression is intended to mean. Academies trust and therefore single person body of persons that is possible therefore that the proposed amendment to the 2008 act is irrelevant to academy schools and if so, can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm this.
But the bill also includes the following wording, and I quote, a standard in relation to proprietor may be prescribed by reference in the case of a proprietor which is a body of persons to whether the Secretary of State is notified before a new person becomes involved in the general control and management of or assumes legal responsibility and accountability for the proprietor ,". It could be said that the members of the company limited by guarantee and or, its directors or persons who become involved in the general control and management of will assume legal response ability and accountability for the company limited by guarantee, namely the proprietor of the Academy school.
I did not draft the bill, I appreciate it is dense. One could argue that it is not applicable because the proprietor of an Academy school is not a body of persons, but it is important that we understand how the government thinks this should be interpreted and I hope the noble Baroness can cover this when she comes to close. My Amendment 48 removes academies from the scope of the amendments to section 118 of the 2008 Education and Skills Act. Under the new section 11 118 a, proposed to be introduced by the bill, I quote, the Secretary of State may suspend the registration of an independent educational institution if the Secretary of State is satisfied that one or more of the independent educational institutions standards are not being met, and the Secretary of State has reasonable cause to believe that as a result one or more students of the institution will may be exposed to the risk of harm.
So my Amendment 4 to 8 seeks to confirm what we already know, mainly that the funding agreement gives the Secretary of State all the powers she needs to regulate academies. And I thought it was worth refreshing my memory and what it included in the last funding agreement, and it covers governance, the running of academies, finance and accounting, complaints, and termination among many other things. So I would have thought that would be sufficient for any Secretary of State. But as the noble Baroness the Minister knows, the concept of suspending the registration of a proprietor of an Academy is fraught with difficulty.
The funding agreement contains complex provisions relating to the termination of such an agreement. Our concern is that the practicalities involved in suspending the registration of an Academy proprietor, thus making it unlawful for the proprietor to continue to operate academies are unworkable. We believe these provisions should not apply to an Academy school but that the Secretary of State should rely on the provision in the funding agreements which give her ample powers of intervention. So it would be helpful if the noble Baroness the Minister could confirm that she agrees with me.
Turning to the other amendments in my name in this group, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain to the House why the list of accepted institution set out in clause 36 does not include academies including free schools of course, does not include studio schools, given that the list does include 16 to 19 academies. I understand that they are directly accountable to the Secretary of State via the funding agreement but surely this is the case for 16 to 19 academies, too.
My Amendment 427 BA mirrors that put down by my honourable friend, which the Minister and the other place committed to addressing and writing but we have not been able to find his response. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify this. At the risk of being repetitive, can the Minister explain what the problem is that the government is trying to solve in relation to academies with this clause. In case the government has not already thought this through and quantified it, I have put down amendments 431 a and 50 60 which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of the educational institutions standards on schools of different types that are not maintained by the local authority before commencement of these changes.
And finally, my amendments 432BN43 IIIa relate to clause 39, subsection 2G which relates to the definition of a material change. Our concern is that there could be a simple change of use of a building or an addition of say, a bike shed which would be for student use which would need to be notified to the Secretary of State and again, can the noble Baroness the Minister explain if this applies to academies or only to feepaying schools. The former Minister in the other place when responding to my honourable friend on this point appeared to say it was the latter but I am not clear where this is made clear in the legislation itself.
Clause 39 links as I understand it, to clause 36 and academies are not accepted institutions unless of course the government sees the light and accepts my earlier amendment. So I had understood that they would be caught by this clause. Secondly, the Minister and the other place argued that one could not be sure that the new building of a private school was suitable for students. If this is the case, why does the government think that the school would be more likely to respect this legislation than that that already exists around health and safety and building regulations and I beg to move.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment proposed, page 80, line 18, leave out line 18 and insert the 18, leave out line 18 and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
list. Amendment 432 4328 and 434 in my
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Amendment 432 4328 and 434 in my name can to -- concern enforcement name can to -- concern enforcement provisions, these are critical in this Bill which seeks to address the harm caused by unregistered harm caused by unregistered educational settings. Let me begin by referring to the experience of a woman, a mother in Stamford Hill.
13:38
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
She received a broad and balanced education within her school and she wants the same for her son but boys are expected to be protected from secular education and she found herself with no choice but to send her son to an unregistered educational establishment. The curriculum he studied was exclusively religious, with no provision at all for any subjects including important subjects such as English and mathematics. This was not parental choice in any meaningful sense, it was the result of communal pressure within a context that often leaves families with no real alternative.
These are the institutions close 36 rightly seeks to bring within the scope of regulation. I accept that there are parents who genuinely do choose to send their sons here but let's be clear the as our schools by any functional definition and this bill makes the necessary statutory clarification to ensure that they are treated as such for regulatory purposes. Once within the scope of regulation, they will be a viable option for parents who wish to make use of their services. However, boys in these environments often attend for very long hours including Sundays, a secular education can be delivered on evenings and weekends in the home, in almost every case entirely implausible so there is no adequate home education for boys who are attending these institutions, often from 730 in the morning until late in the evening and on Sundays.
We offered to visit but the offer was rejected so there is no transparency in this respect. We have met young men who attend such places and we were struck by their resilience but also deeply saddened by the obstacles they faced in assessing the education -- accessing education that was denied them in childhood and we are disappointed that the noble Baroness was so disparaging about the comments that they might have made. These were genuine and they were deeply concerned.
What is important to note is that these young people do not wish to abandon their religion or community, but they do seek to live full lives as both observing deuce and as citizens and this is a goal that we in this House should affirm and respect and support. They also raised, I may say, serious safeguarding issues in respect, in relation to the excessive use of corporal punishment. We should be concerned about that, too. My Lords, the bill adopts a two pronged strategy, first clause 31 introduces a home education register to provide transparency and ensure that those genuinely providing home education are able to continue to do so and clause 32 strengthens school attendance orders where that education is not genuinely being delivered.
Secondly, clause 36 enables regulatory oversight of independent institutions operating outside of the law. Our amendments strengthen the enforcement mechanisms required to make these provisioned -- provisions truly effective. These provisions are not about targeting responsible home educators they are about ensuring that no child, whatever their background, falls through the cracks and unfortunately, these boys are falling through the cracks. Let me turn to the amendments themselves. The first amendment, for 3 to a -- the operation of an unregistered educational institution and creates a further offence for assisting or encouraging such activity in any other manner.
This is a proportionate response to a practical challenge. In many cases it is not immediately clear who owns or operates these institutions but it is clear who owns the buildings. This amendment aims to create a disincentive to any individual or organisation from profiting from unlawful activity that places children at risk either directly or indirectly. The second amendment 434, grants the power to search premises without a warrant during investigations into suspected illegal schools. This is a necessary power to prevent disguise compliance and unable safeguarding action, and unable safeguarding action, delay can perpetuate harm.
The enforcement provisions are not about criminalising communities, they are about upholding our collective duty to protect the rights of children to a safe and adequate education irrespective of cultural or religious contexts. I must say here, but I greatly agree with everything the noble Baroness said in her speech in the earlier amendment and I greatly agree with what the Baroness said. I acknowledge the important intervention as the noble Lord referenced in article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is indeed vital to uphold the right of parents to educate their children in line with their beliefs but that right is not absolute and that is what we must all accept.
It must be balanced with the state's duty to ensure that every child receives an education that meets minimum standards of safety and quality. That duty is enforced by the UN Convention on the rights of a child. This bill does not constrain religious practice, many children already attend registered schools where they receive both religious and secular education and they are frequently with it -- within the sector. This may be relevant to the questions that the noble Lord asked earlier.
And at second reading, it was said no cultural or religious norms should be permitted to override the fundamental rights of children. I thank all of those members of your Lordships House who engaged on this issue with considerable care and conviction. But I urge the Minister to consider these amendments seriously. They seek not only to ensure that all children in this country without education, they seek only to ensure that all children in this country without exception can access
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I apologise to Baroness Blackstone for seeking to speak before she outlined her very
These are the institutions close 36 rightly seeks to bring within the scope of regulation. I accept that there are parents who genuinely do choose to send their sons here but let's be clear the as our schools by any functional definition and this bill makes the necessary statutory clarification to ensure that they are treated as such for regulatory purposes. Once within the scope of regulation, they will be a viable option for parents who wish to make use of their services. However, boys in these environments often attend for very long hours including Sundays, a secular education can be delivered on evenings and weekends in the home, in almost every case entirely implausible so there is no adequate home education for boys who are attending these institutions, often from 730 in the morning until late in the evening and on Sundays.
We offered to visit but the offer was rejected so there is no transparency in this respect. We have met young men who attend such places and we were struck by their resilience but also deeply saddened by the obstacles they faced in assessing the education -- accessing education that was denied them in childhood and we are disappointed that the noble Baroness was so disparaging about the comments that they might have made. These were genuine and they were deeply concerned.
What is important to note is that these young people do not wish to abandon their religion or community, but they do seek to live full lives as both observing deuce and as citizens and this is a goal that we in this House should affirm and respect and support. They also raised, I may say, serious safeguarding issues in respect, in relation to the excessive use of corporal punishment. We should be concerned about that, too. My Lords, the bill adopts a two pronged strategy, first clause 31 introduces a home education register to provide transparency and ensure that those genuinely providing home education are able to continue to do so and clause 32 strengthens school attendance orders where that education is not genuinely being delivered.
Secondly, clause 36 enables regulatory oversight of independent institutions operating outside of the law. Our amendments strengthen the enforcement mechanisms required to make these provisioned -- provisions truly effective. These provisions are not about targeting responsible home educators they are about ensuring that no child, whatever their background, falls through the cracks and unfortunately, these boys are falling through the cracks. Let me turn to the amendments themselves. The first amendment, for 3 to a -- the operation of an unregistered educational institution and creates a further offence for assisting or encouraging such activity in any other manner.
This is a proportionate response to a practical challenge. In many cases it is not immediately clear who owns or operates these institutions but it is clear who owns the buildings. This amendment aims to create a disincentive to any individual or organisation from profiting from unlawful activity that places children at risk either directly or indirectly. The second amendment 434, grants the power to search premises without a warrant during investigations into suspected illegal schools. This is a necessary power to prevent disguise compliance and unable safeguarding action, and unable safeguarding action, delay can perpetuate harm.
The enforcement provisions are not about criminalising communities, they are about upholding our collective duty to protect the rights of children to a safe and adequate education irrespective of cultural or religious contexts. I must say here, but I greatly agree with everything the noble Baroness said in her speech in the earlier amendment and I greatly agree with what the Baroness said. I acknowledge the important intervention as the noble Lord referenced in article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is indeed vital to uphold the right of parents to educate their children in line with their beliefs but that right is not absolute and that is what we must all accept.
It must be balanced with the state's duty to ensure that every child receives an education that meets minimum standards of safety and quality. That duty is enforced by the UN Convention on the rights of a child. This bill does not constrain religious practice, many children already attend registered schools where they receive both religious and secular education and they are frequently with it -- within the sector. This may be relevant to the questions that the noble Lord asked earlier.
And at second reading, it was said no cultural or religious norms should be permitted to override the fundamental rights of children. I thank all of those members of your Lordships House who engaged on this issue with considerable care and conviction. But I urge the Minister to consider these amendments seriously. They seek not only to ensure that all children in this country without education, they seek only to ensure that all children in this country without exception can access
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I apologise to Baroness Blackstone for seeking to speak before she outlined her very
13:46
Lord Lexden (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Lexden (Conservative)
important amendments. Mine are different and narrow in scope. I refer to amendments 4 to 9 and four through three. Relating to independent schools which I brought forward in a close association of noble friend, a strong champion of independent schools, as I am to. I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council which gives expression at national level for its one its 1423 member schools there are around 80% of pupils in the present sector educated with a double interest declared since I'm the current President of the independent schools Association and the constituent bodies which has eight members, many small in size and cherished by the local communities they serve so well.
By making provision for a wide range of special needs. It is no secret that independent schools have the differences, deep differences with the current government. Principally because of the imposition of VAT on school fees. I am very glad to say that this bill does not arouse deep anxiety and there is no clash fundamentally opposed principles as over VAT. My two amendments seek to explore the possibilities of adjusting and modifying the government's proposals in a number of respects, rather than taking a serious issue with them.
I might add that the points in question, the subject of careful discussion allegedly between education department officials and senior staff of the Independent Schools Council. The essential aim of my probing amendments is to secure, on the public record a firm indication of the government's response to issues that have been raised in those discussions, without seeking to contest the broad policy. And 49 for example except that the Secretary of State should have power and require independent schools to have regard, a phrase used in the bill for guidance issued from time to time by the Department for Education.
That is entirely appropriate and to give a short example that all children have equal safeguarding detection in equal education and a moral and cultural development. Such areas, it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to police duties and independent schools, by way of guidance. Would it also not, would it not also be appropriate to ensure that the Secretary of State would not seek to limit a schools dependence. In the words of the amendment in respect of missions, the curriculum or examinations.
The vital three, three vital components. Components in education, such qualifications specify the amendment. It would surely and it would not surely be unreasonable to expect that the Secretary of State prescribes new standard that dependent schools must meet would lay before Parliament the statements of asserting that those three vital components of independence would not be compromised. A similar statement would be when a subsequent guidance is issued. The bill, as it stands, provides of any new standard which independent schools would be required to adhere is subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
There are guidance issued under the standard that would be illegally binding, without any defined role. My amendment would give Parliament a role. In this in both houses would be able to bring forward emotions about individual documents and pieces of guidance, if they wish to do so. Effective power for Ministers needs to be balanced by effective protection of the independent schools. Above all, no future government should be able to limit their operational dependence by expanding the purposes, which guidance can be used.
That is what amendment and 429 will achieve. And at 443 graces a single specific problem that independent special schools frequently counter. 128 such schools, within the membership of the Independent Schools Council and another 600 which are not council members. Children admitted to these schools, to receive support for one or more special needs are often found to have other needs as well. The point of which my other friend Baroness Barran has touch. The child admitted to a school specialising in dyslexia, for example may have problems trying to read as part of a wider disorder, such as ADHD.
Under the bill, a special school which response to the circumstances, by making provision for additional needle needs be required to make what is known as material change application. It is that that might, to which my noble friend the Baroness Barran made a specific solution. The trouble is that under clause 39, such applications need to be made before action is taken to meet a child's extra needs. This is obviously impractical. The school deeply concerned... Make immediate arrangements.
Amendment 4 hundred and 43 will provide a simple amendment to set at risk the concerns of schools which find themselves in the circumstances and that they will be in breach of the law. The amendment gives schools to academics terms to make material change application. It is a common sense proposal which I hope the government will consider. Plainly some change to the bill will seem to be needed to avoid a different independent on independent and this misunderstanding perhaps, this gives the impression that the school only need to make an application for material change if it wishes to alter its main purpose.
Explanatory Notes currently referred to schools specially organised make special education provision. Does this mean independent special schools would only need to make a material change application if it changes the SEN D provision. It is specially organised to make. Perhaps the Minister would clarify this point when she responds to the issue, the issues which my two probing amendments raise.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly, I added my name is 2432,
By making provision for a wide range of special needs. It is no secret that independent schools have the differences, deep differences with the current government. Principally because of the imposition of VAT on school fees. I am very glad to say that this bill does not arouse deep anxiety and there is no clash fundamentally opposed principles as over VAT. My two amendments seek to explore the possibilities of adjusting and modifying the government's proposals in a number of respects, rather than taking a serious issue with them.
I might add that the points in question, the subject of careful discussion allegedly between education department officials and senior staff of the Independent Schools Council. The essential aim of my probing amendments is to secure, on the public record a firm indication of the government's response to issues that have been raised in those discussions, without seeking to contest the broad policy. And 49 for example except that the Secretary of State should have power and require independent schools to have regard, a phrase used in the bill for guidance issued from time to time by the Department for Education.
That is entirely appropriate and to give a short example that all children have equal safeguarding detection in equal education and a moral and cultural development. Such areas, it is reasonable for the Secretary of State to police duties and independent schools, by way of guidance. Would it also not, would it not also be appropriate to ensure that the Secretary of State would not seek to limit a schools dependence. In the words of the amendment in respect of missions, the curriculum or examinations.
The vital three, three vital components. Components in education, such qualifications specify the amendment. It would surely and it would not surely be unreasonable to expect that the Secretary of State prescribes new standard that dependent schools must meet would lay before Parliament the statements of asserting that those three vital components of independence would not be compromised. A similar statement would be when a subsequent guidance is issued. The bill, as it stands, provides of any new standard which independent schools would be required to adhere is subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
There are guidance issued under the standard that would be illegally binding, without any defined role. My amendment would give Parliament a role. In this in both houses would be able to bring forward emotions about individual documents and pieces of guidance, if they wish to do so. Effective power for Ministers needs to be balanced by effective protection of the independent schools. Above all, no future government should be able to limit their operational dependence by expanding the purposes, which guidance can be used.
That is what amendment and 429 will achieve. And at 443 graces a single specific problem that independent special schools frequently counter. 128 such schools, within the membership of the Independent Schools Council and another 600 which are not council members. Children admitted to these schools, to receive support for one or more special needs are often found to have other needs as well. The point of which my other friend Baroness Barran has touch. The child admitted to a school specialising in dyslexia, for example may have problems trying to read as part of a wider disorder, such as ADHD.
Under the bill, a special school which response to the circumstances, by making provision for additional needle needs be required to make what is known as material change application. It is that that might, to which my noble friend the Baroness Barran made a specific solution. The trouble is that under clause 39, such applications need to be made before action is taken to meet a child's extra needs. This is obviously impractical. The school deeply concerned... Make immediate arrangements.
Amendment 4 hundred and 43 will provide a simple amendment to set at risk the concerns of schools which find themselves in the circumstances and that they will be in breach of the law. The amendment gives schools to academics terms to make material change application. It is a common sense proposal which I hope the government will consider. Plainly some change to the bill will seem to be needed to avoid a different independent on independent and this misunderstanding perhaps, this gives the impression that the school only need to make an application for material change if it wishes to alter its main purpose.
Explanatory Notes currently referred to schools specially organised make special education provision. Does this mean independent special schools would only need to make a material change application if it changes the SEN D provision. It is specially organised to make. Perhaps the Minister would clarify this point when she responds to the issue, the issues which my two probing amendments raise.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly, I added my name is 2432,
13:53
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly, I added my name is 2432, a and 434, given that I spoke on this in the previous group of the members. I do not wish to rehearse members. I do not wish to rehearse that. Linking to what Baroness Lister film and said, in her contribution to the previous debate. I think she described a situation where people aren't cooperating with Ofsted and the Inspectorate to make sure that unregulated body of schools can be regulated. For 3 to a really as Baroness Blackstone said, it means that actually it can be taken about people without the building, that is clear, rather than people who run the building.
You can see how that could be evaded. The Second Amendment gives Ofsted the power to search the premises when they go along, rather than being sent away and have to presumably get
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a warrant and be able to go back and look around. I very much support those amendments and attack them on to the previous debate. This is approaching almost 2
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Briefly, I added my name is 2432, a and 434, given that I spoke on this in the previous group of the members. I do not wish to rehearse members. I do not wish to rehearse that. Linking to what Baroness Lister film and said, in her contribution to the previous debate. I think she described a situation where people aren't cooperating with Ofsted and the Inspectorate to make sure that unregulated body of schools can be regulated. For 3 to a really as Baroness Blackstone said, it means that actually it can be taken about people without the building, that is clear, rather than people who run the building.
You can see how that could be evaded. The Second Amendment gives Ofsted the power to search the premises when they go along, rather than being sent away and have to presumably get
**** Possible New Speaker ****
a warrant and be able to go back and look around. I very much support those amendments and attack them on to the previous debate. This is approaching almost 2
13:54
Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is approaching almost 2 o'clock. Unless the next Speaker- finish their contribution by 2 o'clock. I suggest we now take a short break to allow the House to prepare the questions, whilst unusual, I beg to me that the debate on this amendment are to be adjourned and we will return to it after Oral Questions. I beg to me
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that the House be resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that 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. I beg to move move that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move move that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be adjourned, during pleasure, until 3 PM. The question is that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 PM. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
Lord Leong (Labour)
**** Possible New Speaker ****
This is approaching almost 2 o'clock. Unless the next Speaker- finish their contribution by 2 o'clock. I suggest we now take a short break to allow the House to prepare the questions, whilst unusual, I beg to me that the debate on this amendment are to be adjourned and we will return to it after Oral Questions. I beg to me
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that the House be resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that 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. I beg to move move that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move move that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
be adjourned, during pleasure, until 3 PM. The question is that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3 PM. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,