Update on the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

It is only a matter of time now that Royal Assent will be given for the "Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. 

It's impact as a piece of legislation is going to be huge, but here I am focusing on areas of concern that could potentially reduce the rights of children and their families compared to the current legal framework.

The bill does introduce many positive measures aimed at strengthening safeguarding and support. However, several clauses grant significant new powers to the state, (particularly local authorities and the Secretary of State) which could, in practice, infringe upon the privacy, autonomy, and decision-making rights of families.

Here is a breakdown of my key areas of concern:

Children’s Social Care

1. Information Sharing and Consistent Identifiers (Clause 4 - New Sections 16LA & 16LB of the Children Act 2004 

Erosion of Privacy and Data Confidentiality. The duty to share information between a wide range of agencies is very broad. While the intention is to safeguard children, the threshold for sharing is low ("the relevant person considers that the information is relevant"). The exemption for when disclosure would be "more detrimental to the child" is subjective and may not be robustly applied. The creation of "consistent identifiers" for children across different services, while administratively useful, creates a de facto national database for children in contact with services, raising significant data protection and privacy concerns.

Use of Accommodation for Deprivation of Liberty (Clause 11 - Amending Section 25 of the Children Act 1989)

Potential for Expanded Deprivation of Liberty. The clause changes the terminology from "restricting liberty" to "depriving children of their liberty" and creates a new category of "relevant accommodation" outside of secure accommodation. This could be interpreted as widening the scope of settings where a child's liberty can be legally deprived, subject to the same safeguards as secure accommodation. The concern is that this normalises and potentially expands the practice of depriving looked-after children of their liberty, a serious infringement of their Article 5 ECHR rights (right to liberty).

Powers of CIECSS and Financial Oversight (Clauses 12-18 - Amendments to the Care Standards Act 2000)

Reduced Procedural Safeguards for Providers and, by extension, Children. These clauses grant extensive new powers to the regulator (CIECSS) and the Secretary of State over providers of children's homes and fostering agencies, including imposing "improvement plans" on parent companies, monetary penalties, and intense financial oversight.

Impact on Families: 

While aimed at improving quality, these powers are punitive and financially focused. If exercised heavily, they could lead to provider instability or exit from the market, disrupting the care placements of vulnerable children. The power to limit profits (Clause 15), while aimed at ensuring value for money, could inadvertently reduce investment and quality if set too low.

Corporate Parenting (Clauses 21-25)

Vague and Unenforceable Duties.

 

The new corporate parenting responsibilities for a long list of "relevant authorities" (e.g., NHS, police, prisons) are drafted in a weak manner ("so far as... reasonably practicable"). This creates a risk of being a symbolic duty without tangible, enforceable benefits for care leavers. The rights of children and young people are not strengthened by a duty that lacks clear mechanisms for enforcement and redress.

Schools

This section contains the most significant potential reductions in family rights, particularly regarding home education.

Children Not in School (Clauses 31-36)

This entire section represents a major shift in the relationship between the state and families who educate their children at home.

Clause 31 (Local Authority Consent for Withdrawal): Removes the current right of parents to autonomously decide to home-educate their children if the child is a "relevant child" (e.g., on an SEN register at an independent school or subject to a s.47 enquiry). This gives the local authority a veto power. The grounds for refusal are broad, including if the authority considers it in the child's "best interests" to be at school, a highly subjective judgment.

Clause 32 (Registration): Creates a mandatory register for all children not in a "relevant school." Parents have a legal duty to provide extensive information (Clause 32, new s.436C), including details of the education provided, the people providing it, and the amount of time spent on it. Failure to provide this information can lead to a preliminary notice and then a School Attendance Order (SAO). This fundamentally changes home education from a right (with a duty to provide a suitable education) to a privilege that requires detailed state monitoring and approval.

Clause 33 (School Attendance Orders): Lowers the threshold for issuing an SAO. An order can now be triggered not only if a child is not receiving a suitable education, but also for bureaucratic reasons like a parent failing to provide information to the register (new s.436H, Conditions C & D) or in complex child protection cases where the authority believes school is in the child's "best interests" (Condition B). This intertwines safeguarding concerns with educational choices, potentially forcing children into school against the family's wishes due to administrative non-compliance.

Clause 34 (Processing of Information): While including a data protection caveat, this clause explicitly states that information sharing under these new powers does not breach "any obligation of confidence." This is a direct override of common law confidentiality, prioritising state data gathering over privacy.

Independent Educational Institutions (Clauses 37-44)

Significant Increase in State Control and Reduction of Autonomy. The scope of regulation is expanded to cover many more institutions providing full-time education (Clause 37). The Secretary of State is given sweeping new powers, including to suspend a school's registration without notice in urgent cases (Clause 38, new s.118A), a drastic measure that could severely disrupt children's education based on a preliminary belief. New powers of entry and investigation (Clause 43) for unregistered settings are extensive and mirror police powers, raising concerns about proportionality.

Academies 

(Clauses 48-51)

Clause 48 (Duty to Follow National Curriculum): Removes curriculum freedom for Academy schools, bringing them in line with maintained schools. While this ensures a common baseline, it reduces the autonomy and distinctive character that was a founding principle of Academies, and limits the ability of school leaders to tailor education to their specific student population.

Clause 50 (Power to Secure Performance of Proprietor’s Duties): Grants the Secretary of State a very broad power to direct Academy proprietors if they are acting "unreasonably" with respect to any duty or power. This is a significant centralisation of power and could be used to micromanage Academies, potentially on ideological grounds.

Summary of Overarching and Rights Implications

Centralisation of Power: A clear trend towards granting more power to the Secretary of State and local authorities, at the expense of the autonomy of parents, schools, and care providers.

Erosion of Family Autonomy: The home education provisions represent the most direct assault on the principle that parents are primarily responsible for their children's education. The state moves from a backstop role (ensuring a suitable education) to a front-line manager of alternative education.

Dilution of Privacy: The mandatory register for children not in school and the wide-ranging duties to share information between agencies create a surveillance framework that treats all families outside the mainstream system with suspicion.

Reduction of Procedural Safeguards: Powers to suspend school registrations without notice, impose financial penalties, and issue School Attendance Orders for administrative failures all reduce the time and opportunity for providers and parents to challenge state actions before they take effect.

Rights at Risk:

Article 8 ECHR (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life): Impacted by the intrusion into home education and extensive data sharing.

Article 2 of Protocol 1 ECHR (Right to Education): Includes the right of parents to ensure education in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The home education regime and the forcing of Academies to follow the National Curriculum engage this right directly.

Article 5 ECHR (Right to Liberty): Potentially engaged by the new provisions on deprivation of liberty in "relevant accommodation."

Article 6 ECHR (Right to a Fair Trial): Concerns about the fairness of procedures where significant penalties or orders can be imposed with limited prior consultation or appeal.

My Conclusion

While the bill contains well-intentioned measures to protect vulnerable children, it does so by constructing a system of heightened state monitoring and control that significantly curtails the rights and freedoms of children and families, particularly those who choose or are forced to operate outside the conventional school system.