Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)

My Lords, as we continue to debate school attendance orders, we must never lose sight of the child at the heart of this. A child gets one chance at an education, and that is why our processes must act swiftly, decisively and in the best interests of the child. Amendments 348, 349, 350 to 352, 358, 362, 363 and 367 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and Amendment 357 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, look to remove or alter the ability for a school attendance order to be served. Amendment 348 seeks to remove the entire school attendance order section. I accept that that may not be the purpose or intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so let me move on to Amendment 349, which would mean that a local authority could serve an order on parents of children who had historically been subject to a Section 47 child protection inquiry or plan, even if this is no longer the case and the child is receiving a suitable education. It would be disproportionate for a local authority to be able to serve an order in these situations. If a Section 47 inquiry has concluded and not resulted in a child protection plan, parents will not be required to demonstrate that home education is in their child’s best interests. If the notice was also issued on the grounds that the local authority was not satisfied as to the suitability of education, the parent would still be required to demonstrate that the home education is suitable. Amendment 350 would require local authorities to consider only the major educational settings used by a child, and Amendment 351 would prevent the consideration of where the child lives as part of the decision to serve a school attendance order. Settings where the child is educated are an important part of the local authority’s suitability assessment. Children attending unsafe or otherwise unsuitable settings are unlikely to be receiving an overall suitable education. It is essential that local authorities can identify where this is the case and take action. Turning to Amendment 352, I hope the noble Lord is reassured to know that the wording in new Section 436I under the Bill does not require local authorities to make financial inquiries of families as part of the school attendance order process. Amendment 357 calls for local authorities to provide formal reasons whenever a school attendance order is issued. Local authorities are already subject to public law duties, and this includes providing reasons for decisions. Statutory guidance will ensure that local authorities are given clear advice and expectations on these matters. Amendments 358, 363 and 367 would prevent a school attendance order being enforced or require it to be revoked should a child no longer live in the jurisdiction. This would be a significant loophole. A parent could remove a child from the jurisdiction temporarily, or claim to have done so, and thereby avoid compliance. Ultimately, this amendment is unnecessary because, once such an order is made, there are already mechanisms for parents to apply for it to be varied or revoked should they move school or demonstrate that suitable education is to be provided outside school. Amendment 362 seeks to ensure that, if a parent has asked that a private school is named in a school attendance order, an order will not be issued and instead education will be deemed as suitable. The intention behind this amendment is to prevent a parent having to pay unaffordable bills if their financial circumstances change. As previously mentioned, the parent can simply apply to the local authority to have the order amended to name another school if they can no longer afford the fees of the school named in the order. Amendments 356 and 359 seek to remove timelines on parts of the school attendance order process. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to probe whether sufficient time is built into the process for informing a school when it is to be named in a school attendance order. I can reassure noble Lords that it is. New Section 436L in the Bill outlines that a local authority must serve a school nomination notice on a school which it intends to name in an order. If the school disagrees with the decision, it has 10 school days to make an application to the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers for a direction. Amendments 349A and 362A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to prevent a school attendance order being issued to any child who has an education, health and care plan, experiences emotionally based school avoidance or is eligible for special educational needs support. All children deserve a suitable education. School attendance orders therefore need to apply to all children. It would not be practical to remove that option from local authorities for particular children. That would limit the available courses of action to secure a child’s education. A local authority should ensure that the school named in an order is right for the needs of the child in question. We recognise that some pupils will be impacted by issues such as emotionally based school avoidance. Our guidance is clear that schools should work with the child and their family to remove barriers to attendance and build strong and trusting relationships. Amendments 364 and 391, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, and Amendment 367A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking, seek to amend the process for revoking a school attendance order. Amendment 364 would require a local authority to establish and consult a panel that includes home-educating parents when considering a revocation request. This would be wholly inappropriate. To come to a decision on whether to revoke an order, it is likely that the local authority will need to consider a range of information about the child’s education and personal circumstances. I cannot imagine that many parents would want this sort of sensitive information shared with a jury of other parents. Amendment 391 seeks to give the parent the right to have their case heard by a jury trial if their child has been required to attend school through a school attendance order. The existing process affords sufficient opportunity for parents to demonstrate that they are providing a suitable education and therefore should not be required to send their child to a named school. Do I understand correctly that my noble friend Lord Hacking is not now pushing Amendment 367A?