Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

485: After Clause 62, insert the following new Clause—
“Parental complaints (maintained schools)(1) After section 29 of the Education Act 2002 insert—“29ZA Parental complaints: appeals(1) A complainant may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) where—(a) the complaint was against a maintained school in England under section 29(1),(b) the complainant was a parent of a registered pupil at the school at the time they first pursued the complaint,(c) the complaint specified one or more legal duties listed in Schedule 1A of which the school was alleged to be in breach,(d) the complaints process under section 29(1) was completed,(e) the complaint was not fully upheld in respect of one or more of the matters specified as described in paragraph (c), and(f) the complainant does not have and has not had any other prescribed right of appeal apart from that provided under section 29(1) and this section.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations about appeals to the First-tier Tribunal in respect of subsection (1), including—(a) making and determining appeals;(b) the powers of the tribunal on determining an appeal.(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may include provision conferring power on the First-tier Tribunal, on determining an appeal against a matter, to make recommendations in respect of other matters (including matters against which no appeal may be brought).(4) A person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse that person fails to comply with any requirement—(a) in respect of the discovery or inspection of documents, or(b) to attend to give evidence and produce documents,where that requirement is imposed by Tribunal Procedure Rules in relation to an appeal under this section or regulations under subsection (2).(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.”(2) After Schedule 1 to the Education Act 2002 insert—“Schedule 1ALegal duties for the purposes of section 29ZA1 (1) The legal duties to which section 29ZA applies are as follows.(2) The Education Act 1996—(a) section 9 (Education in accordance with parental wishes),(b) section 402 (Obligation to enter pupils for public examinations), (c) sections 403 to 405 (Sex education),(d) sections 406 to 407 (Politics) and(e) section 542(1) (Prescribed standards for school premises);(3) The Education Act 2002—(a) sections 78 to 80B (General duties in respect of the curriculum), and(b) section 175(2) and (3) (Duties ... in relation to welfare of children);(4) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998—(a) section 1(6) (Duty in relation to infant class size),(b) sections 69 to 71 (Religious education and worship), and(c) section 114A (Requirements for food and drink provided on school premises etc);(5) Childcare Act 2006, section 40 (Duty to implement Early Years Foundation Stage);(6) Children Act 1989, sections 87 and 87C (Welfare of children in boarding schools and colleges and national minimum standards) and(7) The Education and Inspections Act 2006, sections 88 to 94 (School Discipline).””

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 485, 487, 488 and 489. Before I do, I warmly concur with and support Amendment 502YM in the name of my noble friend Lady Spielman, which I believe is clear, sensible and complementary to my amendments. The principle behind my amendments is simple, and it goes to the heart of the rule of law. The laws that this Parliament passes are not mere suggestions for our schools; they are the rules that must operate, and they must be properly followed. That requires accountability when those laws are broken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point, and these will all be matters that are being considered as the Secretary of State takes this important work forward. I can get a written note and put it in the Library to outline the way forward and where we are at this moment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her well thought through and considered response. It ranged wider than I expected, but just for the avoidance of doubt, of course I deprecate any unreasonable or vexatious complaints against teachers from parents that might veer into anti-social behaviour of the type she mentioned in terms of WhatsApp groups. I am happy to put that on record.

This has been a very thoughtful and important debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who took part, not least the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and my noble friend Lady Spielman, who both brought great expertise and experience to the debate—the noble Lord from his time on Liverpool City Council and my noble friend from her leadership of Ofsted.

At its heart, this debate has revolved around a single clear question: do we believe that the laws passed in Parliament should be enforceable in schools? People are worried about a litigation culture, yet the evidence demonstrates that the current system of bureaucratic brick walls and institutional inertia is the true source of conflict and frustration. We have heard concerns about costs, but I ask again, what is the price of the status quo? What is the cost of a department that fails in its duty, and of parental trust in schools evaporating?

This accountability vacuum does not remain empty for long: it is filled by an entire ecosystem of unaccountable third-party advisers and activists. This is not, I suggest, a failure of individual teachers but a systemic failure. In the absence of clear enforcement, the law becomes muted and professionals are left rudderless. Into this void step commercial subscription services. I will give one final example in this debate. The Key is an organisation ironically first established by the Department for Education before it was privatised. When the previous Government consulted on draft guidelines for schools on gender-questioning children, The Key actively counselled schools that it would be unlawful to follow that guidance.

The accountability these amendments would introduce is not just for schools; it is for the entire advisory industry, which is funded by stretched school budgets. When the advice of these organisations is tested before a tribunal and found wanting, schools will quite rightly cease to pay for it. The market for bad advice will therefore, for the first time, face a correction.

These amendments are not a radical proposal. They do not seek to create conflict: they seek to provide a clear, fair and independent forum for its resolution. They would not undermine professional judgment, but they do subordinate it to the rule of law, which is as it should be. They give parents a voice and give the law teeth.

In conclusion, the choice is simple. We can endure the current inertia, condemning parents to a system that does not work, or we could take a meaningful step to restore accountability, uphold the will of Parliament and ensure that, when a parent has a legitimate concern that a school is breaking the law, they have somewhere to go. I believe we must choose the latter. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but will consider returning to it at a later date.

Amendment 485 withdrawn.