What Next?

The third reading of CSF Bill in the Commons will be on 23rd Feb.  (Hansard on the committee stage.)

If the election is to be on 6^th May then it will be called on March 29^th and parliament will go into recess on April 12^th according to this article on Politics.co.uk.

But what about the Easter recess; they had 18 days last year and this year Easter Sunday falls on April 4^th.  Will they break up some time before this or on the Friday just before?  At the very least the Easter Break must surely take away another five working days from the time they have left, could it be more?

I have heard that the Lords have no time for a first reading of the bill until 9^th March (can’t remember where, one of the lists or another blog) so even if they start on the 10^th that gives it just over five weeks to progress though the first two readings followed by the committee stage, the report stage and the third reading.  Assuming here that the process is similar to that in the Commons.  Then there is consideration of the amendments and hopefully the Lords won’t be as ineffectual and as disabled by party bullying as the Commons has disgracefully been, so there will be some amendments.  Then Royal assent, no idea how long that takes.

Five weeks seems far too long to me so I do think we really all do need to write to the Lords, some people are making sterling efforts already and there is a list of Lords with some information about their interests here.  This can be amended so please add any information you find.

Then lobbying of MPs is in order, anyone who hasn't sent their MP this document might want to do it now and the AHED submission to the Scrutiny Committee is very clear.

There is talk also of the APPG for Home Education hosting an event for home educators to meet Lords and explain the problems with the bill, some speakers have been mentioned, I remember Imran and Betsy, their marvellous submission to the scrutiny committee is here. 

You can read all the submissions here.  

We still need to make more noise!

Timeline	Children Schools and Families Bill
Date	Event
23rd Feb	Third reading: Commons
10th March	Earliest date for first reading in Lords, second reading, committee stage, report stage and third reading to follow.
29th March	Election called
4th April	Easter Sunday: Possible recess
12th April	Parliament dissolved
6th May	General and Local Elections

Update:  There are now rumours that the Election may be brought forward to April 15th, which would mean that the time for moving the bill through the Lords would be reduced to less than two weeks with Parliament dissolved round about the 22nd March.

Watch Live, Childrens Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee Thurs 4 Jan

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5806

HE bit this afternoon.

Harman says"Final Stages of the CSF Bill" will be on Tuesday 23rd Feb. This will be the Report Stage and Third Reading  (From BRAG)

Memorandum submitted by AHEd: Children Schools and Families Bill.

AHEd calls for the withdrawal of sections 26 (Schedule One) and 27 of the
CSF Bill currently under scrutiny.

1. Civil Liberties:

The issues addressed in the Children Schools and Families Bill, sections 26
(Schedule One) and section 27 are serious issues of civil liberty. We urge
all MPs to oppose these sections of the bill The grossly disproportionate
proposals hold serious implications for the civil liberties of all parents,
children and families in this country. They have potentially fatal
implications for all parental responsibility for education as enshrined by
s7 of the 1996 Education Act and, furthermore, violate human rights
instruments:

1.1 Articles 8, Human Rights Act 1998

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.

1.2 Protocol 1. ARTICLE 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any
functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the
State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and
teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical
convictions.

1.3 Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with
his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on
his or her honour and reputation.

2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks.

1.4 The proposals of sections 26 and 27 represent attempts to remove a
fundamental freedom and make it into the provisional gift of government.

1.5 By long tradition and common sense, it is parents and families who
safeguard children, as is their legal and moral duty. In general citizens
have benefited from an assumption of innocence and families are trusted to
care for their children without routine oversight by the state.

2. Regulation:

Rule by regulation represents arbitrary authority and interference that
should not be imposed upon the people.

2.1 Sections 26 and 27 allow for the making of regulations relating to the
registration and monitoring of home education provisions in England and
Wales. These sections ask parliament to agree to a skeleton provision for
the regulation and monitoring of a section of the electorate, the content of
which regulation parliament does not know.

2.2 Parliament is asked to grant power to vary regulation without rigorous
parliamentary scrutiny.

3. Registration:

Registration is permission, since it can be withheld; the recommendations
specifically intend it to be withheld where education proposals do not meet
with prior state approval.

3.1 The proposed registration scheme is about complying with a licensing
scheme in order to gain permission to carry out parental responsibilities.
Education is a parental responsibility. Families who choose to educate their
own children outside the state school system are not required to register
their decision with the local authority as they do not require LA services.
Local authorities are responsible to provide school places for those
children whose parents require a place for them - not to inform themselves
of the education provision of all children

4. Monitoring Education and Welfare:

The proposals are disproportionate and unnecessary. The current system
allows for parental choice and responsibility which is balanced with strong
local authority powers where there is an appearance of failure or risk. This
is proportionate and effective where properly enacted. In cases of dispute,
courts can decide if a suitable and efficient education is in place. These
terms have been defined in case law.

4.1 Some LAs do not believe the current system is strong enough. Mr Badman
told the scrutiny committee that LAs have been frustrated at not being able
to do the job they "think" they should do. The position is that current
legislation IS strong enough but it does NOT provide for the LAs to do the
job their preferences and prejudices cause them to THINK they should do.
Many LAs find it hard to accept that home education is a private issue not a
public issue - unless and until a parental failure to comply with their
duties occurs, which does not require routine monitoring, just as other
private family provision does not.

4.2 It is an attack against families to try to replace the current balance
with intrusive family interventions by attempting to generate a false
dichotomy between "rights" of parents and "rights" of children, saying that
the government must routinely intervene between the two to "balance" these
rights. This is an argument for state intervention, control and division of
the family.

4.3 In exhaustive and repeated consultations over the past five years all
results have favoured supporting existing freedoms unchanged and to ask
local authorities to abide by existing law. DCSF are now attempting to
detract from the overwhelming vote against their proposals, denying many
home educators a voice by labelling them "part of a campaign".

4.4 The underlying issue is that local authorities have failed to understand
their duties. LAs believe that they must ensure the welfare, education, and
"Every Child Matters" (ECM) outcomes of every child in their area; but do
not have the legal powers to do so. They do not have the power because they
do not have these duties. Parents are responsible to ensure the welfare and
education of their own children. ECM outcomes are a guide in the provision
of public services to children. Home Education is not a public service
provided to children.

4.5 Home educated children and their families are subject to the same laws
as every other family. These laws already provide for Local Authority
intervention where there is evidence of concerns for the education or
welfare of a child. Routine checking and monitoring of all home educating
parents and children would undermine fundamental civil liberties, contravene
the Human Rights Act and send the very divisive and dangerous message to
children, that their parents are not to be trusted and that strangers from
the LA over-ride parental authority.

4.6 Routine checking and monitoring of all home educating families would be
unnecessarily costly. This is particularly controversial at a time when
there are limited resources available for Children's Services, which should
be properly directed towards genuine need. Therefore, the government should
trust parents to do a good job and measures for intervention should be on
the basis of reasonable concern only as currently provided for.

4.7 After extensive consultation, the DCSF did produce guidelines to local
authorities on elective home education in 2007. The guidelines have not
satisfied home educators or local authorities because of inconsistencies
where the department has tried to support the assertion that local
authorities are responsible to ensure the educational provision and welfare
of all children in their area. The assertion angers parents, who are
responsible for their own children and should be left alone to do their job
with the confidence of their government. The assertion pressurises local
authority officials to carry out duties for which they do not have any
corresponding legal powers with the intention of carrying out intervention
in families to prescribe, legislate and inspect all educational provision
and ensure its compliance with state requirements regardless of logic, need,
benefit, or resource implications

4.8 Families should not be subjected to a system of routine surveillance to
ascertain their innocence, or to investigate ungrounded fears about families
who simply choose not to receive Local Authority services. Such a policy
would cause vastly more harm that it could ever hope to prevent.

5. Summary:

AHEd members call for the removal of sections 26 (Schedule One) and 27 from
the CSF Bill. Current law as it relates to elective home education already
provides for:

parental responsibility

freedom of conscience

the presumption of innocence

promotes the best interest of the child

requires education suitable for the child

provides for local authority action where there is an appearance of failure

gives access to due process in the case of dispute

Please see our Parents' Declaration:
<http://ahed.pbworks.com/ParentsDeclaration>
http://ahed.pbworks.com/ParentsDeclaration

AHEd statement

We declare that:

We refuse to cooperate with any recommendations made or any actions taken by
any government unless they support our existing freedoms.

Following a history of being sidelined, persecuted and harassed, having had
to resist years of repeated and vexatious consultations designed to
regulate, control or remove our parental options, we will not tolerate any
further persecution or erosion of our freedoms.

There can be no compromise or negotiation between totalitarian intentions
and our agency over our own lives.

We are opposed to registration.

We are opposed to monitoring.

We are opposed to government interventions in how we educate our children in
the home.

We are opposed to compulsory home visits.

We are opposed to compulsory interviews with our children.

We will not co-operate with the oppression of our children.

We demand a presumption of innocence

We want our representatives in parliament to say:

NO to the nationalisation of children

NO to the licensing of parents

NO to any new legislation restricting home education

Watch Live, Childrens Schools and Families Scrutiny Committee Tuesday 2 Jan

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5788  am

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5787 pm.

Child Abusers to have greater legal protection than ordinary parents, Social Workers insist

The following article was released by members of the Badman Review Action Group yesterday.

Child Abusers to have greater

legal protection than ordinary

parents, Social Workers insist

Under proposed legislation, parents who abuse their children will have more rights than ordinary parents who opt to teach their children themselves.These changes will apply to all families who decide for whatever reason that their children’s educational needs are better met in the home environment EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WELFARE OR SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS.

In evidence submitted to the Scrutiny Committee for the Children, Schools and Families bill, social workers Imran Shah and Cintha Archer stated, “As home-educating parents ourselves, we would enjoy greater legal safeguards if we were abusing our children than we would do for educating them at home. We find it perverse that Schedule 1 [of the CSF bill] will give localauthorities greater powers to act over families who are providing loving care than they have over families where children are being abused or are at risk of abuse.”

Mr. Shah and Ms. Archer enumerated their ethical and legal concerns about the proposed legislation in their submission, chief of which is the fact that, “There is no statutory requirement within the text of this Bill for local authorities to act in the child’s best interests. As experienced social workers we are alarmed at this omission, which gives administrative procedures primacy over children’s needs. Since there is no obligation on local authorities to have the best interests of the child as their central and overriding concern, the new powers will be damaging to the well-being of the child.”

Schedule 1 powers will not only remove any legal obligation the local authority has to safeguard the home educated child’s best interests, say Shah and Archer, it will also remove the rights of legal redress from home educating families. This, they maintain, will be particularly onerous for families where class, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity or culture are a consideration. Local authorities will have no legal requirement to consider the impact of its actions on families or children for whom these factors are an issue, even though social workers and social policy makers accept that these families are the ones that fare the worst in dealing with government and its agents.

Shah and Archer insist that they are simply arguing for fairness and equality before the law. “We are not arguing for the removal of the protections that are afforded to the families who are subject to social services intervention, merely stressing that it is unjust to not extend those same protections to those families who are educating their children at home as an expression of their loving commitment to their children. Local authorities already have the powers that they need to ensure that children are safe and that their educational and other needs are being met Schedule 1 is unjust, illiberal and damaging to home-educating families and their children, and we ask for it to be removed from the CSF bill.”

The full text of Mr. Shah’s and Ms. Archer’s submission is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/childsch/memo/ucm0702.htm

Those who wish to contact either Mr. Shah or Ms. Archer for comment may leave a comment on this blog. The blog author will pass on such inquiries to BRAG.

The Truth about Schedule 1 of the Children Schools and Families Bill

Great letter to a Bishop, could be adapted for a Lord.

Here.