Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Bishop of Manchester Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s sensible proposals in Amendment 121A—they obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances and my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent if a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan or if they are currently defined as a Section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect.

It is important to remember that although education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. For some parents this is a very important principle, which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent and, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide.

My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question in Committee:

“What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be … so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education”—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.]


in this Bill? The vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those who do, it is an important freedom. I say to the Minister that I am flagging up a possible situation beyond this Bill. Although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity. I am looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child, or offers unacceptable alternatives, such as return journeys of 90 miles to a school every day or private tutoring in a public place. Of course this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling for parents who have been offered an unacceptable solution to their problem.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

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

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

[Lord Wei (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

175A: Clause 37, page 83, line 42, at end insert—
“(fa) an institution—(i) that is only providing religious instruction or guidance,(ii) where parents or guardians of attendees have registered at their Local Authority that they provide suitable out-of-school education separate from or in addition to any attendance at the institution, and(iii) where the institution demonstrates to the Local Authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures;”Member's explanatory statement
This Amendment seeks to mitigate the adverse impact on institutions providing religious instruction, but not wider or general education, as identified in the Equality Impact Statement.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, this amendment is a repeat of one that I tabled in Committee, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford spoke in my absence. I am deeply grateful to him, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marks of Hale, who have added their names to it on Report.

My concerns with the Bill in its current form relate to those noted in the equality impact assessment, which singled out and named the particular issues that might arise for the Haredi Jewish community. As a Lord spiritual, I see my role as including speaking out when members of another religious community’s beliefs and practices are at stake. Among several groups within Judaism, the practice for boys—it is just boys we are talking about here—during their teenage years after their bar mitzvahs, is a combination of home schooling alongside religious instruction, the latter being provided by a yeshiva. At present, yeshivas are not treated as educational institutions, but the Bill makes it likely that they will be in future.

We need to reflect that we are legislating at a time when, after 7 October 2023, Jewish communities here in the UK, and in many other parts of the world, feel particularly threatened and vulnerable. The steep rise in antisemitic crimes is making some people I know who have been long committed to Britain wonder whether they are still welcome and safe in the UK. New laws that threaten their long-standing traditions simply play into that fear. The Jewish community—I went to school among Jewish boys—is a precious and vital constituent of British life. I sincerely believe that we must make every possible effort to allay their fears.

In working on this amendment, I have become more aware than ever that there are different voices and practices, even among the ultra-Orthodox communities. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but those I have met with have given me assurances. For example, they have no problem with the institutions that their boys attend being in scope for safeguarding oversight and inspection. I am assured that the theology of these groups means that those who study their faith at a yeshiva are not being radicalised and are not drawn to political extremism. Indeed, the very opposite is true: they are members of a deeply law-abiding community. Many who come through this combination of home schooling and religious instruction emerge as excellent citizens, well equipped to flourish in British society and to become entrepreneurs, business leaders and assets to our community.

I am grateful for the conversations that I and noble colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—it is good to see him looking fully recovered after his surgery before Christmas—have had with civil servants and Ministers since Committee. That has significantly cleared the ground and resolved a number of issues along the way. These conversations have explored considerable detail. Some were about when exactly boys are expected to attend a yeshiva, during what would otherwise be normal Monday to Friday school hours. Others were about what precisely an institution that comes under the regime set out in the Bill will be required to include in its teaching and work. I am grateful for the assurances we have received that there is no intention to require such bodies, which are not equipped for it, to comply with the national curriculum.

Some of the groups I have met or corresponded with are concerned that, if a carve-out is not in the Bill, there are risks that secondary legislation will not provide sufficient assurance. They fear that a future Secretary of State would be free to make regulations that would, in effect, outlaw their way of life. I have listened carefully to those concerns; I understand their fears—my amendment would allay them.

However, it is the very complexity of the issues that has led me to conclude that these matters may be better dealt with through a period of careful consultation with those affected, prior to regulations being laid. To that extent, I have several questions for the Minister—I sent them to her yesterday—that I hope she will be able to answer in responding to this debate. Subject to that, I expect to be able to withdraw my amendment, as I have come to think that getting the regulation right on these matters of detail may be the better way.

First, can she assure the House that there will be ample time for consultation ahead of any regulations being issued, and that the groups referred to in the equality impact statement—of whom I have spoken this evening—will be engaged with, listened to and heard?

Secondly, can she affirm that the Bill does not require the same regulations to be applied to all institutions that fall under its remit? What may be appropriate for an acting college might be very different for a yeshiva. If that is correct, can the Minister assure us that the avenue of bespoke arrangements for particular classes of institution will be fully and openly considered and explored?

Thirdly, can she confirm that regulations should be based more on the whole lifestyle of the children involved, rather than being narrowly focused on particular times of day and days of the week? These divisions do not always carry the same status in some of our minority communities. The boys I am speaking of are not allowed on social media or on the kind of devices that while away the time of many of our teenagers.

Finally, will she agree with me that due attention must be given in any regulations to the teachings of faith communities regarding sensitive matters, such as relationships and sex education, so that young people are equipped to live in a pluralist society, without being told that their faiths and beliefs are wrong or somehow not British? I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Hale (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 175A. The Government and the Secretary of State for Education in particular have rightly been vocal in confronting antisemitism in education, but that commitment must extend beyond condemning violence or bans towards Jews. The Government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people and then ban or close down their faith institutions.

The Government make no secret of the fact that Clause 37 consciously seeks to close down or entirely alter yeshivas. In their analysis of the Bill since its launch, the only faith community they ever mention is the strictly Orthodox Jewish one. The Bill leaves no lawful space for long-established religious institutions, which provide only religious instruction and operate alongside registered home education.

Yeshivas are safe and safeguarded institutions. They are not schools. They do not provide academic education and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose. They exist to inculcate a lived faith. That some noble Lords may raise an eyebrow at that purpose says more about the distance of our own society from faith traditions than about the yeshivas themselves.

Alongside attending yeshivas, these boys are home-schooled. That home education is serious and improving. I have seen their new communal platforms personally, and they are now in active use.

The amendment before the House is narrow and proportionate. It ensures the continued safeguarding of yeshivas; requires registered home education, regulated, of course, by the local authority; and prevents the misclassification of religious institutions. In short, it allows the Government to achieve their aims of maintaining child welfare and education while recognising the lawful set-up of the Haredi Jewish community.

Report is the final opportunity to correct this in primary legislation. To use biblical imagery, the Government’s heart and lips must be aligned. The Haredi Jewish community and its yeshivas must continue to flourish, their children safe and home-schooled. The amendment is the only way that this can happen.

--- Later in debate ---

I have attempted to set this out plainly and I hope to have provided reassurance, because I am aware that, although not specifically designed for yeshivas, the clause has caused concern among some Haredi Jews. I hope that this explanation makes clear the Government’s intentions and the practical effect of this clause and that, on that basis, the right reverend Prelate feels able to withdraw his amendment so that we can continue constructive discussions while ensuring that the intentions of this clause are realised in its implementation.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part. I will not delay us long. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that there have to be some limits to what a faith community can do. I believe we can achieve that if we work hard over the next few months on how these kinds of institutions are going to be regulated. We can make sure we are providing space for bona fide organisations that are clearly having the outcome of producing wholesome young people without opening the floodgates to all sorts of negative patterns of upbringing that we might wish to be wary of. I am hugely grateful for the reassurances received and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 175A withdrawn.