Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Crisp and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

Is the Minister saying that when a local authority has just granted authority to parents to take responsibility for life for what are difficult children with trauma in their background, fairly soon afterwards you are going to second-guess them about how they should do education? The Minister may say that it should be done softly, but essentially that is what she is saying—that she is going to make them jump through yet another hoop.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. Therefore, the opportunity within that five-year period to have the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school would serve those children well. I was about to say that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built.

On Amendment 121A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I thank the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others for their constructive engagement last week. They have referenced the meeting they had with my officials on the detail of their amendment; of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and the DCS in Hampshire. The amendment would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home-educate them to a much broader group of children, including all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry or child protection plan; those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders; and those who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

We tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years was a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change. Extending the timeframe to consider all children previously subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, and including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from children’s social care, risks discouraging families from agreeing to accept support and services early or may lead to them withdrawing from this support, if consent from the local authority is required to home-educate.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called this amendment a nuanced approach. Well, it is not a nuanced approach because it aims to use this specific consent provision to solve much wider issues within the Bill and goes far beyond, in terms of the breadth of children it would encompass, those included by the Government’s amendment. It is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve through the Families First Partnership programme, whereby we want to broaden the group that come forward for help at the earliest possible opportunity.

Noble Lords have rightly expressed their concern about the children who fall through the cracks in the system, and that is why we are fixing the system that safeguards and protects children and investing £2.4 billion in rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. It is why we are developing multi-agency child protection teams in every local area and legislating for better information sharing and a stronger role for education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. These measures are designed to identify and support more quickly children who need help and protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, touched on the fact that this amendment would capture every parent whose child has ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry who wishes to remove that child from school. Let us not forget that a Section 47 inquiry is a significant event for a family—an intrusion into family life without consent. I know we all agree that this is the right thing to protect children from harm where it is needed, but last year alone just under 200,000 children aged between five and 15 were the subject of an inquiry. While I recognise that only a small number of these parents will want to home-educate, it would be both a significant undertaking for a local authority and a significant additional intrusion for those parents where concerns were not substantiated and no further action was taken.

On broadening the consent measure to include children where supervision or care proceedings are or have been initiated, once again it is a significant undertaking for the local authority to seek court intervention in family life. In these circumstances, the local authority should and will be assessing the safety and well-being of the children. Most of these children will have been on child protection plans before proceedings are initiated, so they will already be within the consent measure. Where proceedings are historic and there are still safeguarding concerns, these children should be being picked up through existing safeguarding mechanisms such as those already captured by the existing consent requirements. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a proportionate approach. I understand the concern to mitigate risk at every possible occasion, but we also need to recognise that this is not the appropriate tool to use, given that this Bill is about improving the whole of the system much more radically.

Amendment 131A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require local authorities to visit the child’s home environment for certain groups of children. Amendment 131 already provides sufficient safeguards by allowing local authorities to consider the child’s home and other education settings and to request a visit to meet the child. Local authorities should already be undertaking home visits as part of their regular oversight of children subject to child protection inquiries or plans, children on child in need plans, and those involved in care or supervision proceedings. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is very clear. It is part of their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area; this would include visiting children who need help, support or protection, and we will also clarify in statutory guidance on the registers that these children should be prioritised for visits at the point of registration.

Amendment 121B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that the views of all parents of the child are considered as part of the local authority’s decision to grant permission for a child to be removed from school for home education. In most cases, we would expect local authorities to seek the views of all parents when they are considering whether to grant consent. However, there will be situations where doing so would be inappropriate. I think we can imagine what some of those might be. Of course, requiring the local authority to consult all of those with parental responsibility could delay a consent decision in circumstances where, for example, estranged parents are hard to reach. We will make this clear in statutory guidance.

Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would require a court to confirm the local authority’s assessment that it is in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. We believe that local authorities will be well placed to make these decisions, as they will be aware of the child’s circumstances and can draw on multi-agency expertise, as well as parental views, in their decision-making. Introducing a requirement for court confirmation would add unnecessary delays.

Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require a local authority to provide a statement of reasons if it refuses to grant permission for a child at a special school to be home-educated. I wholly agree that it is right for reasons to be provided, and we intend to make this clear in statutory guidance, which we will consult on. In that consultation, we will also consider to what extent a local authority’s reasons for a decision should include the costs and benefits to the child of permission being granted or refused.

Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to ensure that the process by which parents can appeal a consent decision made by a local authority is transparent and fair. The first proposed new subsection in this amendment makes many sensible suggestions but I do not think it is necessary to place this level of detail in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords earlier this month outlining the department’s intention to provide more in-depth guidance on the appeals process, which will include target timelines and examples of the type of evidence that may be submitted. I am afraid that I do not agree with the second proposed new subsection. The tribunal process can be lengthy and these types of cases do not fall within the current remit of the Local Government Ombudsman. The appeals process proposed in the Bill is uncomplicated, objective and will be the most efficient route for parents to get a final decision.

Amendment 125A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to amend the provisions of government Amendment 125 to establish a pilot scheme of mandatory meetings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intention that lies behind his amendment. The Government’s amendment places a clear requirement on local authorities to record the outcome of these meetings. Should this provision be accepted, statutory guidance will make explicit that the record must include any concerns that parents express about schools, as well as actions taken by the authority in response. As part of the pilot, we intend to gather this information so that we can understand how it is being used and how it might drive improvements across the system—this is a call made by other noble Lords as well—so we can get a better understanding of why, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, parents are withdrawing their children from school.

Amendments 164B, 164C and 167A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to give discretion or place limitations on when local authorities may issue preliminary notices or school attendance orders. The department agrees that it is important that local authorities work to foster positive relations with home-educating families, which is why the Bill introduces a support duty. We have tabled an amendment to require local authorities to offer home-educating parents a biannual forum to discuss any concerns or issues. However, if a child is in potentially unsuitable education or education that is not in their best interest, action must be taken without delay.

Amendments 170A and 170B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to place limitations on when a local authority can request a home visit when considering whether a school attendance order should be served. By this stage of the school attendance order process, a local authority will already have used informal inquiries and a preliminary notice to the parent to obtain information about the child’s education. A parent will therefore have had several opportunities to satisfy the local authority that their child is in receipt of a suitable education. Requiring a local authority to obtain a court order to conduct a visit would not be an appropriate use of the court’s time and could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education. We will use statutory guidance to help local authorities sensitively conduct these visits and we are developing a training package for local authorities focusing on their new duties.

Amendment 175ZD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is unnecessary because Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear that education otherwise than at school is a legitimate choice for parents—incidentally, a point that has been made by the Government throughout the whole of this debate and consideration of the Bill.

Amendment 175ZE, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of conduct in respect of attendance. There is already statutory guidance that sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in this amendment in relation to improving school attendance. The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022, following full public consultation, and it was updated less than 18 months ago in August 2024.

This has been a wide-ranging group of amendments, but I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I commend the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 120.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Crisp and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good debate on this group—interestingly, with some rather different perspectives on the nature of the extent to which information should be included on the register. Let me deal with the range of points, I hope, as reassuringly and informatively as I can.

Amendment 235A was introduced by my noble friend Lord Hacking, although it seems that it had several parents—I will try to respond to the principles of it—and Amendment 239 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These amendments would mean that registers would be required to contain the names and addresses of only the parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child, rather than details of all parents of the child. Parents would also not need to provide information on how much time their child spends receiving education from each parent.

As I said in relation to Amendment 238 from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the reason why both parents’ details are needed is because, by law, each parent has an equal responsibility for securing a suitable education for their child. This remains the case even if a parent is not providing the education themselves and is instead securing other providers to do so. Although I understand the intention behind these amendments, I worry that they would result in local authorities being unable to obtain necessary information.

My noble friend Lord Hacking gave a harrowing example in relation to access to information on the registers. I had hoped that my comments in our debate on the previous group had given some assurances around the control of and requirements for confidentiality around the register, which will provide some reassurance on that. Additionally, I am concerned that Amendment 239 would make it more difficult for local authorities to identify children who may not be receiving a suitable full-time education. Without having the time that a parent spends educating their child on the registers, how are local authorities to know whether the six hours that a child spends at a supplementary school each week is just part of their education or their whole education?

In relation to Amendment 235A, what if no parent claims responsibility for the education of the child? Unfortunately, we must face the reality that some children in England and Wales are receiving no education at all from their parents or from anybody else. Where this is the case, how can local authorities even begin to intervene if they are missing basic information, such as an up-to-date address for both parents?

Amendments 240, 241 and 247, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to restrict or remove completely the requirement on parents to provide information on the amount of time their child spends receiving education from individuals other than the parent. I will come back in a moment to the point about hours and time, raised—appropriately—by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lady Morris. But it is important that local authorities understand whether other persons are involved in the education of the child. This, alongside information on for how much time a child is educated by their parent, will support the authority to establish whether education is full-time or not and to fulfil their existing duty to identify children missing education. This is an important point, which the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also brought to our attention.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

Will the Minister answer my supplementary question about whether the department or she have in mind a number of hours that make up full-time education that they are trying to get to through this process?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I said I will come to that—I am coming to it. I will also answer the other point about the annual report.

Once again, on this, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and other noble Lords for taking the time to meet my officials and to outline in detail their concerns about the nature of the information that we are requesting. I understand the concern not to limit the wide range of activities that effective home education may well involve, the range of different organisations that might be contributing to it and the burdens that might be placed. I reassure noble Lords that I am reflecting on the points raised.

Amendment 253, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to define what constitutes education for the purposes of for which activities parents must provide information on the registers. I anticipate that the noble Lord tabled this amendment to reduce parental burden, but it will actually do the reverse. It would bring a broad list of activities into scope of the duty to provide information, as any activity that results in the child learning would be classed as education. It is not the policy intention that registers will need to contain information on such a wide range of activities. The accepted definition of “education” is that it should contain elements of supervision and instruction that work towards defined objectives. This is supported by case law.

I recognise that noble Lords are concerned about the burden that the duty to provide information on a child’s education provision places on parents and local authorities. We will ensure that those burdens are kept as low as possible. Parents will not be required to give details on non-educational activities, for example, and we will outline this in detail in statutory guidance and, obviously, consult on the details.

Amendments 243 and 249, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 254B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seek to place limitations on the providers that parents must provide information on. They set a threshold so that parents need to provide information only on organisations that offer more than six or 10 hours of education a week, that educate their child during the school day, or that are one-off or largely social and recreational activities. Although I appreciate that these amendments seek to reduce burdens on parents, the exemptions would potentially leave large gaps in the overall picture of a child’s education. This is particularly true if a child is attending multiple providers or does not follow the school timetable. In relation to Amendment 254B, as I mentioned, we will make it clear in statutory guidance that parents will not be expected to give details of non-educational activities for the register.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Crisp and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Let me organise my notes—you are keen for things to move quickly and then they move just that bit too quickly.

The importance of out-of-school education providers to home-educating families has been raised several times already. I recognise again the important part these settings play, providing enriching activities and education to a vast array of children. I hope that these providers will recognise that the measures included in the Bill give no reason to cease this valuable work—notwithstanding that I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about the concerns of organisations as we clarify the intentions here. We will continue, therefore, to engage with the sector on the implementation of children not in school registers, so it is confident in what the registers mean for it.

The amendments in this group concern the duty on certain out-of-school education providers to give information for children not in school registers. Amendment 288, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the duty. This is a vital element of the measures that will aid the identification of children who should be on registers but are not. It is essential for enabling local authorities to cross-reference information on their registers to ensure accuracy. We know that many out-of-school education providers share our ambition to secure the best possible outcomes for these children and will gladly support the registers on that basis.

Amendment 290, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seeks to remove the word “structured” from the definition of out-of-school education. Actually, the impact of this amendment would be to potentially bring many more providers into scope of the duty, such as informal or ad hoc educational arrangements. It is important that the duty remains proportionate. I know that proportionality is an ambition shared by many noble Lords in this House and has been an important theme of the debates today.

This is not to say that informal or ad hoc educational arrangements are invalid. We know that some home-educators follow child-led approaches to learning, in which, under the direction of their parent, children learn from a wide range of people they encounter in their daily lives. Parents can record this as time spent in education for the purposes of the registers, but local authorities will not have the power to seek information from those individuals.

It is also important to note that the provider duty applies only where education is provided without any parent of the child being actively involved in their tuition or supervision. This means that groups of home-educating parents who meet up with their children are unlikely to be captured by the duty. The duty also applies only when an individual is providing the education; therefore, creators of platforms for e-learning, for example, would not be required to give information on children who access their websites.

Amendments 288A, 291, 292 and 293, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would limit the Secretary of State’s power to set a threshold at which local-level authorities can request information from out-of-school education providers, or otherwise exempt providers from the duty to give information; for example, by removing the requirement in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-educated children—I will not return to that again; I have taken out the relevant paragraph.

I agree with the sentiment behind these amendments. The Bill allows for regulations to set a threshold, and we are committed to setting it at a suitable level. I recognise the probing element of the amendments in this case; however, noble Lords’ varying suggestions on where the threshold should be set—for example, at six or 10 hours—exemplify why it should not be set in primary legislation. We will consult further to ensure the threshold balances the need for local authorities to collect necessary information without placing unreasonable burdens on providers. Noble Lords will also have the opportunity to debate the threshold when it is set in regulations through the affirmative procedure.

To reiterate, the intention behind the provider duty is to capture the providers involved in providing a home-educated child’s education, rather than organised activities that the child may be involved in for primarily recreational or social reasons—even if they are important for their development, such as the example of rugby raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

As I previously highlighted, the ability to prescribe a threshold, as well as the ability to make regulations to exempt types of providers from the duty, will help ensure that only those that are relevant are captured. It is our intention to exempt those organisations that have a drop-in, drop-out nature or happen irregularly. Examples of that include museums that offer workshops for children, as my noble friend Lady Morris stated this morning; public lectures that are open to any family or individual to book; and periods of work experience, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp has suggested. It is our intention to exempt those organisations and types of activities.

I know that some noble Lords are concerned that the provider duty introduces a disparity between school children and home-educated children, but we must remember that there is a huge level of oversight for where and what children are learning at school, which is bolstered by inspection frameworks, curriculum requirements and attendance data. What we are asking of out-of-school education providers in comparison is minimal. As part of the implementation, we will keep engaging with the sector to ensure continuity of provision for home-educated children; I recognise how important that is.

Amendments 294 and 299, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, seek to remove the requirement for providers to confirm to local authorities whether they are providing out-of-school education to a child for more than the prescribed amount of time, and to remove the requirement to provide information on the amount of time they are doing so. Amendment 294 would require providers to give information on any child. This would not be proportionate. The legislation limits this to children to whom they are providing education above a prescribed threshold without their parents’ involvement.

In reference to Amendment 299, on understanding the number of hours children are attending such provision without their parents, we will support local authorities to identify children who are attending unregistered independent schools. Some children not in school are attending those illegal settings for long hours and are not receiving a safe or suitable education. It is crucial that the local authority has the information required to intervene in those circumstances.

Turning to Amendment 298, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seeks to further clarify the information that providers are required to give local authorities on the total amount of time for which they provide education to children, we believe this amendment is unnecessary. The drafting is already clear that the total amount of time that the provider provides education to the child refers to the time when the child is receiving education from the provider. However, statutory guidance can be used to give further detail if necessary.

On Amendment 296, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would require providers in scope of the duty to provide only information that they already know to local authorities, providers should already hold the required information for health and safety and safeguarding purposes, and they will have to provide it only on request. Enabling providers to provide only the information that they know makes it too easy for unsuitable settings to just say “I don’t know” and to keep children hidden away from the services that are there to support them.

On Amendment 300, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which would remove the provision in new Section 436E that the local authority must request information from a provider by sending or leaving a notice at the place where the education is provided, providers in scope of the duty need clarity on how information will be requested. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has tabled this amendment due to his concerns as to how the provision will work for virtual providers. The legislation already provides for a notice to be served electronically, and we can make this clear in statutory guidance.

On Amendments 301 and 302, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which seek to extend the period by when a provider must respond to a local authority’s request for information, it is essential that local authorities have the requested information as soon as possible so that they can ensure that their registers are accurate and identify children who should be registered but are not. The timeframe for providers to give the required information is at least 15 days, and a local authority has discretion to extend that—for example, to account for closures over holiday periods.

Amendments 303 and 304, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 295, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, set out reasons to exempt some out-of-school education providers from monetary penalties should they not provide requested information for a local authority’s register. A local authority does not have to impose a monetary penalty on providers should they fail to provide information or provide incorrect information. It would be unlikely that a local authority would issue a monetary penalty if a provider had made a minor mistake for the first time, for instance. We will look to make it clear in the statutory guidance that authorities can engage with providers to correct minor mistakes without having to resort to penalty notices. The process for providers to make representations against and appeal a monetary penalty is set out in the Bill. I think this is sufficient recourse for providers who disagree with their monetary penalty.

I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined and because of the explanations I have provided, noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister made some excellent and very clear statements in response to my amendment, which are extremely useful. Will she consider putting any part of that in the Bill? It seemed to me that she was very clear and definitive, and that it was not beyond the wit of the department to come up with some clever form of words that would indicate what she stated without making it very difficult to introduce regulations later. Perhaps that is something the Minister would consider.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have stated it on the record here. I have also identified one of the problems with putting it in the Bill—I used the example of time limits, where, so far, we have had two different suggestions as to whether that should be six hours or 10 hours. The noble Lord knows this, but there are real difficulties and inflexibilities in placing that sort of detail in legislation. I would be more than happy to write to noble Lords, going over again the intention with respect to those regulations. I think I am right in saying that the regulations will also be subject to consideration by this House. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord. As much as I know that people love things to be in Bills, in this case I genuinely think that we can be clear about the intention and provide assurances without creating the inflexibility that placing something in the Bill would do.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Debate between Lord Crisp and Baroness Smith of Malvern

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is right and I am grateful to him for again drawing my attention and that of the Committee to his drafting. I guess one would then need to consider the group of children in special schools, because I would be surprised if the noble Lord’s drafting applied to so many of them.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

At the heart of this group of amendments is the concern about the use and definition of the expression “best interest of the child”.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and others suggested that the use of the “best interests” ground in Clause 30 is a fundamental change to parents’ rights. I reiterate the quite narrow scope of the use of “best interests” in this clause. Remember that what we are dealing with here is not the fundamental decision about whether a parent has the right to remove their child from a school to educate them at home. They have that right, unless some very specific circumstances are met—when they may still have the right, but we introduce a process for the local authority to consent to whether it is appropriate for that to happen. I do not think I need to run through once again that narrow category of children and circumstances where, as we are proposing here, the local authority should be enabled at least to consider the issue of whether, in those circumstances, it is appropriate for the child to be removed from school.

I know that some noble Lords do not believe that there should be any need for consent and therefore do not believe that the criteria that the Government have chosen of Section 47 inquiries, child protection plans or special schools are appropriate. I accept that but, if you do have a consent system—and there is quite a lot of support for the idea that an additional stage is appropriate for children in these circumstances—you then need to decide the criteria for the local authority’s decision-making. New subsection (6)(b) makes it clear what those criteria should be in these very specific circumstances.

It does not feel unreasonable to me that those criteria should be what the local authority believes to be the best interests of the child. We can assume that the parents believe in the best interests of their child, but in these very specific circumstances, because of the nature of the children, we think the child’s rights might override the view of their parents.

So the first criterion is what is in the child’s best interests; the second is whether or not there are suitable arrangements made for the child to receive education, other than at school. I understand that some noble Lords do not believe that those are the right criteria, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this is somehow a fundamental change in the rights of parents. We recognise that most parents have their children’s best interests at heart and tirelessly advocate for them, often in difficult circumstances. That should be the basis on which parents are able to make decisions, in most circumstances, about whether or not their children are removed from school to be educated otherwise.

However, there are situations where a child could receive a suitable education at home but it is not in their best interests to do so—for example, if there are concerns that the child is being exposed to domestic abuse or extremism. In those cases, the school can act as a protective factor that enables issues to be escalated quickly.

I hope that my argument about the reason for the choice of those criteria also covers the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. He recommends that a local authority should automatically refuse consent for any child where the local authority has concluded that they are suffering or likely to suffer significant harm following a child protection inquiry, but child protection is complex and practitioners must gather a range of information and evidence from multiagency partners and others who work with the child and their family, and children can experience harm from both inside and outside the home. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to prohibit all such children from being removed from school for home education.

The consent measure rightly requires the local authority to consider the individual circumstances of each child. It is probably worth reminding ourselves that the consent measure is not preventing parents in these circumstances from home-educating; it is simply saying that the local authority should consider whether that is appropriate and use the two criteria that have been set out in the Bill.

Amendment 212, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

I think I understand the Minister’s points, but could I just pick up the slightly pedantic point that I was making? If it is an “or”, it implies that suitable arrangements could be made for the education of the child otherwise than at school and that the local authority still considers that it would be in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. It is a slightly pedantic point and I am very happy to just register it rather than require an answer. As I say, I think it is the law of the excluded middle.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. If I am wrong on this then I will clarify afterwards, but you could envisage a situation where the problem was not the nature of the education being provided but whether, given the circumstances that the child found themselves in, it was in their best interests not to be in a school. The protective element of being in a school could be the most important point there.