Member

We are told that this is necessary for safeguarding. Safeguarding is not achieved by building vast registries of families against whom there is no evidence of harm, or by compelling intrusive disclosures as a matter of routine. True safeguarding depends on skilled, targeted, professional intervention where there are credible indicators of risk, and on fostering relationships of trust so that families seek help before difficulties escalate. My fear is that, by replacing nuanced relational work with a heavy bureaucratic model, we will, paradoxically, reduce the willingness of families to come forward when they need support—precisely the opposite of what effective safeguarding requires. That is why, while I support these various amendments, whether on SEND carve-outs, clearer protection for flexi-schooling, tighter data demands, or respect for mobility and cultural traditions, I remain of the view that Clauses 31 and 34 themselves are simply too broad. They must be either radically tightened to focus solely on cases where there is clear evidence of unsuitable educational risk or, preferably, reconsidered entirely.