Lords debate measures to close illegal schools

Peers debated measures to close illegal faith schools during their scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill yesterday. These new powers and legislative clauses are the culmination of Humanists UK’s decade-long campaign to close illegal faith schools. Several amendments – both in favour and opposition to regulating illegal schools – proposed by peers were discussed in the course of the debate.

Giving Ofsted more powers to act

Amendment 434, which sought to give Ofsted the powers to search premises without a warrant during investigations into suspected illegal schools, was proposed by Humanists UK patron and All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) member Baroness Blackstone. This amendment sought to strengthen these powers to allow them to also conduct searches.

Baroness Blackstone said:

‘This is a necessary power to prevent disguised compliance and to enable timely safeguarding action. Delay can perpetuate harm… The enforcement provisions are not about criminalising communities; they are about upholding our collective duty to protect the rights of children to a safe and adequate education, irrespective of cultural or religious context.’

Baroness Whitaker, also a Humanists UK patron and a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG) spoke during the debate:

Baroness Whitaker said:

‘[…] we need to have an effective grip on unregistered schools, because of the undoubted harm to education and well-being being done – by some of them only – with impunity.’

Responding on behalf of the Government to Baroness Blackstone’s amendment, Baroness Twycross explained how the Government felt the measures already included in the Bill were appropriate and balanced and did not require further changes.

Baroness Twycross said:

‘While I understand my noble friend’s concerns, this would be too intrusive. The Bill already strikes a good balance between allowing inspectors to act as they deem appropriate and introducing necessary safeguards which protect the rights of those subject to the investigation.’

Exempting religious institutions 

Some peers sought to amend the Bill to exempt settings, such as yeshivas, that provide only religious instruction or guidance to children of compulsory school age, provided certain other conditions are met. The Bishop of Oxford, speaking to amendment 427c on behalf of its proposer the Bishop of Manchester, spoke of ‘unintended consequences’ that could threaten freedom of religion and belief, and impose ‘extra bureaucratic burdens on many volunteer-run out-of-school settings’.

Despite getting support from some peers, many spoke against this amendment. Baroness Morris of Yardley disputed claims that the measures in the Bill threatened the ability of a parent to educate their child in a particular faith and questioned how a child spending long hours at an out-of-school setting could also receive an appropriate home education.

Baroness Morris said:

‘It is not the case that if you close down the yeshivas, no one can have a school based on this faith. They can – and it is in the registered sector. What I have a problem with is the yeshiva. This is where I oppose Amendment 427C. My argument for doing so is very straightforward: if you are there at 8:00 and you leave at 18:00, it is a school. Whatever you do at home afterwards is not full-time education. If you are there at 8:00 and leave at 18:00, it does not in any way have that balance of education that I think we want for everyone.’

Also opposing this amendment, Baroness Whitaker talked about how she met former pupils and heard about their experiences.

‘I have listened to children speaking about the unregistered schools that they went to, of all faiths. Of course this is only about some schools. Nevertheless, I was very struck by what they had to say about the paucity of the curriculum, often about the enforced dogma of what was taught, sometimes about abuse and sometimes about a very anti-social and anti-democratic ethos. Of course this does not at all represent all faith schools, but those children themselves were not alone. In short, we need to get a grip on unregistered schools.’

Former Chief Inspector of Ofsted, Baroness Spielman highlighted the loopholes in legislation and spoke in favour of further powers being granted to authorities investigating suspected illegal schools.

Baroness Spielman said:

‘Current legislation just is not equipped to deal with bad-faith operators. It dates back to a time when it was almost unimaginable that a school that had omitted to register would not do so when it was pointed out.’

‘accepting a two-tier system where some children receive an education which is potentially less safe and subject to less oversight than that of their peers […] purely because the educational setting that they attend full-time offers religious instruction to a greater or lesser degree. It is an important principle that settings whose hours of operation suggest that they are operating like a school and providing all or a majority of a child’s education are regulated. Clause 36 supports that principle […] 427C would undermine that principle.’

Baroness Blackstone also proposed and spoke to Amendment 432A which sought to create an offence for landlords, property owners and letting agents who knowingly facilitate the operation of an illegally unregistered educational institution. This amendment was not moved. 

Commenting on the debate, Humanists UK’s Education Campaigns Manager Lewis Young said:

‘Yesterday’s debate demonstrated a strong level of support from peers to take action against illegal faith schools and their proprietors. Although some amendments designed to strengthen the measures in the Bill were not taken forward, we are pleased the Minister rejected attempts to exempt certain settings and confirmed the Government’s commitment to making sure every child receives an appropriate and inclusive education.’