Member

Amendment 170B draws a clear boundary around compulsory home access. It requires “reasonable grounds to suspect” significant harm and judicial authorisation. Refusal of a voluntary visit should not itself be treated as evidence of wrongdoing. Safeguarding concerns risk and inspection concerns compliance; confusing the two is dangerous. Once refusal becomes evidence, consent stops meaning anything at all. Imagine that you are arrested by a policeman, and you are read your rights. You are making your own case, or you refuse to provide information at that stage—possibly for ideological reasons—which is then used as part of the evidence against you. Amendment 167A reframes school attendance orders as a genuine last resort, requiring clear evidence, exhaustion of less intrusive support and specific regard to the child’s needs, well-being and wishes. It ensures that compulsion follows judgment, not procedure.