Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. Therefore, the opportunity within that five-year period to have the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school would serve those children well. I was about to say that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built. On Amendment 121A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I thank the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others for their constructive engagement last week. They have referenced the meeting they had with my officials on the detail of their amendment; of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and the DCS in Hampshire. The amendment would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home-educate them to a much broader group of children, including all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry or child protection plan; those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders; and those who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989. We tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years was a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change. Extending the timeframe to consider all children previously subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, and including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from children’s social care, risks discouraging families from agreeing to accept support and services early or may lead to them withdrawing from this support, if consent from the local authority is required to home-educate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called this amendment a nuanced approach. Well, it is not a nuanced approach because it aims to use this specific consent provision to solve much wider issues within the Bill and goes far beyond, in terms of the breadth of children it would encompass, those included by the Government’s amendment. It is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve through the Families First Partnership programme, whereby we want to broaden the group that come forward for help at the earliest possible opportunity. Noble Lords have rightly expressed their concern about the children who fall through the cracks in the system, and that is why we are fixing the system that safeguards and protects children and investing £2.4 billion in rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. It is why we are developing multi-agency child protection teams in every local area and legislating for better information sharing and a stronger role for education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. These measures are designed to identify and support more quickly children who need help and protection. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, touched on the fact that this amendment would capture every parent whose child has ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry who wishes to remove that child from school. Let us not forget that a Section 47 inquiry is a significant event for a family—an intrusion into family life without consent. I know we all agree that this is the right thing to protect children from harm where it is needed, but last year alone just under 200,000 children aged between five and 15 were the subject of an inquiry. While I recognise that only a small number of these parents will want to home-educate, it would be both a significant undertaking for a local authority and a significant additional intrusion for those parents where concerns were not substantiated and no further action was taken. On broadening the consent measure to include children where supervision or care proceedings are or have been initiated, once again it is a significant undertaking for the local authority to seek court intervention in family life. In these circumstances, the local authority should and will be assessing the safety and well-being of the children. Most of these children will have been on child protection plans before proceedings are initiated, so they will already be within the consent measure. Where proceedings are historic and there are still safeguarding concerns, these children should be being picked up through existing safeguarding mechanisms such as those already captured by the existing consent requirements. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a proportionate approach. I understand the concern to mitigate risk at every possible occasion, but we also need to recognise that this is not the appropriate tool to use, given that this Bill is about improving the whole of the system much more radically. Amendment 131A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require local authorities to visit the child’s home environment for certain groups of children. Amendment 131 already provides sufficient safeguards by allowing local authorities to consider the child’s home and other education settings and to request a visit to meet the child. Local authorities should already be undertaking home visits as part of their regular oversight of children subject to child protection inquiries or plans, children on child in need plans, and those involved in care or supervision proceedings. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is very clear. It is part of their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area; this would include visiting children who need help, support or protection, and we will also clarify in statutory guidance on the registers that these children should be prioritised for visits at the point of registration. Amendment 121B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that the views of all parents of the child are considered as part of the local authority’s decision to grant permission for a child to be removed from school for home education. In most cases, we would expect local authorities to seek the views of all parents when they are considering whether to grant consent. However, there will be situations where doing so would be inappropriate. I think we can imagine what some of those might be. Of course, requiring the local authority to consult all of those with parental responsibility could delay a consent decision in circumstances where, for example, estranged parents are hard to reach. We will make this clear in statutory guidance. Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would require a court to confirm the local authority’s assessment that it is in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. We believe that local authorities will be well placed to make these decisions, as they will be aware of the child’s circumstances and can draw on multi-agency expertise, as well as parental views, in their decision-making. Introducing a requirement for court confirmation would add unnecessary delays. Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require a local authority to provide a statement of reasons if it refuses to grant permission for a child at a special school to be home-educated. I wholly agree that it is right for reasons to be provided, and we intend to make this clear in statutory guidance, which we will consult on. In that consultation, we will also consider to what extent a local authority’s reasons for a decision should include the costs and benefits to the child of permission being granted or refused. Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to ensure that the process by which parents can appeal a consent decision made by a local authority is transparent and fair. The first proposed new subsection in this amendment makes many sensible suggestions but I do not think it is necessary to place this level of detail in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords earlier this month outlining the department’s intention to provide more in-depth guidance on the appeals process, which will include target timelines and examples of the type of evidence that may be submitted. I am afraid that I do not agree with the second proposed new subsection. The tribunal process can be lengthy and these types of cases do not fall within the current remit of the Local Government Ombudsman. The appeals process proposed in the Bill is uncomplicated, objective and will be the most efficient route for parents to get a final decision. Amendment 125A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to amend the provisions of government Amendment 125 to establish a pilot scheme of mandatory meetings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intention that lies behind his amendment. The Government’s amendment places a clear requirement on local authorities to record the outcome of these meetings. Should this provision be accepted, statutory guidance will make explicit that the record must include any concerns that parents express about schools, as well as actions taken by the authority in response. As part of the pilot, we intend to gather this information so that we can understand how it is being used and how it might drive improvements across the system—this is a call made by other noble Lords as well—so we can get a better understanding of why, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, parents are withdrawing their children from school. Amendments 164B, 164C and 167A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to give discretion or place limitations on when local authorities may issue preliminary notices or school attendance orders. The department agrees that it is important that local authorities work to foster positive relations with home-educating families, which is why the Bill introduces a support duty. We have tabled an amendment to require local authorities to offer home-educating parents a biannual forum to discuss any concerns or issues. However, if a child is in potentially unsuitable education or education that is not in their best interest, action must be taken without delay. Amendments 170A and 170B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to place limitations on when a local authority can request a home visit when considering whether a school attendance order should be served. By this stage of the school attendance order process, a local authority will already have used informal inquiries and a preliminary notice to the parent to obtain information about the child’s education. A parent will therefore have had several opportunities to satisfy the local authority that their child is in receipt of a suitable education. Requiring a local authority to obtain a court order to conduct a visit would not be an appropriate use of the court’s time and could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education. We will use statutory guidance to help local authorities sensitively conduct these visits and we are developing a training package for local authorities focusing on their new duties. Amendment 175ZD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is unnecessary because Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear that education otherwise than at school is a legitimate choice for parents—incidentally, a point that has been made by the Government throughout the whole of this debate and consideration of the Bill. Amendment 175ZE, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of conduct in respect of attendance. There is already statutory guidance that sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in this amendment in relation to improving school attendance. The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022, following full public consultation, and it was updated less than 18 months ago in August 2024. This has been a wide-ranging group of amendments, but I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I commend the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 120.