Member

The logic of this group is straightforward: a universal register is the wrong architecture for safeguarding. It is untargeted, disproportionate, and risks normalising permanent oversight of lawful families, which itself risks being unlawful and conflicts with GDPR legislation. If the House nevertheless insists on building it, this must not be allowed to harden into permanence without proof. It must be bound by review—active parliamentary review—annual transparency, and meaningful independent redress. Either way, the principle remains the same: safeguarding must be evidence-led, proportionate and lawful. It must remain capable of correction. It must not quietly recode lawful educational diversity as a category requiring permanent surveillance. I commend these amendments to the House.