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.