At the end of January 2026 the House of Lords voted in favour of government amendments for local authorities to decide whether a child may be home educated if there has been a Child Protection Plan in the past 5 years [amendments 43,76,77]. The House of Commons will look at Lords amendments on March 9th 2026 and the bill is back in the Lords just before Easter.
Numbering Of Lords Amendments
Numbering of Lords amendments can be tracked here Bill 11th February Lords Amendments and here Explanatory Notes February 12th
Background Information Child Protection Plan
If – after conducting formal safeguarding enquiries – a local authority believes there is evidence that a child “is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm” then it must take action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 which usually involves drawing up a Child Protection Plan. There will be a review every few months to look at progress made and to decide if the Plan is still necessary. [Section 47 link]
There are many reasons for a Child Protection Plan, not simply the risk from the parent caring for the child for example there could have been a CP Plan because of dangers in school or the wider community (extra-familial harm), or domestic abuse from a parent who is no longer in the family home.
There is also “a default position that assumes parental failings when assessing the needs of disabled children”, see Cerebra https://cerebra.org.uk/download/institutionalising-parent-carer-blame/
Even where the parent is not being blamed, a child protection plan may be put in place to ensure regular multi-agency oversight, because budget cuts mean this is the only available option.
Child Protection Plans in Wellbeing Bill
Previously, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill said that if there were ongoing formal safeguarding enquiries or a current Child Protection Plan then a child couldn’t be taken out of school for home education unless the local authority agrees that home education is in the child’s “best interests”.
The Bill also said that where a child is already home educated, an ongoing safeguarding enquiry or a Child Protection Plan would trigger the School Attendance Order process in which the parent will have to convince the LA that home education is in the child’s “best interests”.
The government has now EXTENDED THIS to historic Child Protection Plans going back 5 years. It would affect whether home education could start AND ALSO whether it could continue.
Lords Amendment 43 requires the parent of any child on a child protection plan in the last five years to seek permission from the local authority before withdrawing them from school for home education. The school would be unable to delete the child’s name from the school roll unless local authority consent was granted.
Lords Amendment 76 allows a local authority to serve a preliminary notice for a School Attendance Order on best interest grounds where a child has previously been on a child protection plan in the five years prior to the date of the notice being served.
Lords Amendment 77 would prevent a local authority from issuing a school attendance order on ‘best interests’ grounds if the child has not been on a child protection plan within the five years of the school attendance order being
issued, unless they are involved in other child protection processes covered by the consent requirement (meaning they are subject to a current section 47 enquiry or child protection plan).
Government Policy Summary Notes January 2026 say “we will set out in statutory guidance that local authorities should conduct a review to consider which children may be better served by being in school. Local authorities will then be able to use the SAO process to require these children to attend a named school” [LINK page 86]
Government Policy Summary Notes also say “Finding the right balance between points of contact for home educated children (and for families considering home education) while safeguarding family privacy is a delicate matter. Following the Local Children’s Safeguarding Practice Review into the murder of Sara Sharif, we have reflected carefully and concluded that the Bill, as first introduced, did not strike that balance as well as it could do.” [LINK page 97]
My Comments
The local authority might be satisfied about the proposed home education arrangements yet still consider school to be in the child’s best interests, and therefore consent would be refused. It has the appearance of fairness since it is not a blanket ban but will be decided on a case by case basis.
However, in my experience schools and local authorities tend to start from the position that the best place for a child is in school. Most local authorities would prefer the child to remain attached to a school. An authority might also refuse consent for withdrawal on the grounds that children would miss out on therapies and specialist support when it is the same authority which has made the decision to withhold support if the child is no longer attached to a school.
Concerns include the local authority [LA] deciding “best interests” without considering the trauma for an individual child forced to remain on the school roll (including potential truancy penalties and being regarded as “missing education” if unable to attend); no time limit for the LA to make its decision; the LA not having to justify the decision; the absence of any independent appeal (being able to ask the government if they agree with the local authority is not seen as an independent challenge); 6 month wait to re-apply if refused.
The proposed measures would mean that anyone who disagreed with home education or had a personal conflict with the parent could make a safeguarding referral at the point of deregistration, which a risk-averse local authority would feel compelled to follow up with a full-blown investigation. We need proper safeguards set out in regulations to keep this in check and under regular review, otherwise it just looks like a way to cut home education numbers.
- Local authorities could treat all child protection plans the same and a risk-averse negative decision could become the default (“panel said no”)
- Families might have to wait a long time for a decision – it is disturbing that there are no timescales
Sara Sharif
There has clearly been a lot of pressure from safeguarding groups for further changes to the Children Not In School clauses of the Wellbeing Bill. The tragic case of Sara Sharif has come up time and again while the Bill has been going through parliament, but the amendments about historic Child Protection Plans make no sense in this context. More about Sara here https://edyourself.org/sara-sharif/
Sara was killed by her father and stepmother in 2023 a few months after being removed from school. She had not been on a Child Protection Plan (formerly known as “on the child protection register”) since she was a baby 10 years earlier although there had been two family court cases by the time she was 3 years old to decide whether she should be taken into care.