Welsh Labour claim the reason for the CWS Bill is “safeguarding”. Child protection.

But that is not what the Prime Minister says is the reason for the Bill that was constructed and written by his government at Westminster.

According to the Prime Minister, his government at Westminster’s reasons for the CWS Bill are social engineering and cultural control.

The Prime Minister justifies “tougher regulations on homeschooling“(sic) and “setting a higher bar for opting out” (i.e. obstructing parental capacity to deregister children from school), because of what he considers to be “the role of schools in *integration*”.

He sees school as a tool of social engineering, and discloses the reasons for the CWS Bill as a way of inhibiting the rights and influences of the family, of increasing controlling behaviour and beliefs of the next generation.

His comments on the reasons for the CWS Bill reveal remarkable prejudice against home educators, conflating with dangerous extremists and abusers. He also demonstrates innate institutionalised discrimination in the belief that the school system is better than parental influence.

The Prime Minister clearly believes he is bringing in the measures of the CWS Bill as a way to control parental choices, to place state as the determiners and influences of children’s values and belief systems. His comments reveal his and his government’s view of home educating families as people to get “tougher” on, as people who have to learn to jump over “higher bars” to be able to advocate for their children’s right to education.

That is not safeguarding, that is interference in and manipulation of family life.

Does the Senedd also see home educating families as people to get “tougher” on, as people who have to learn to jump over “higher bars” in providing and advocating for their children’s wellbeing and education?

The irony seems to be lost on the Prime Minister of speaking of “setting a higher bar” for and getting “tougher” on loving parents raising their own children during a speech that was meant to be addressing the compromise of integrity of the government in the sleaze of overlooking the Mandelson/Epstein situation.

Methinks the Prime Minister doth deflect too much?

The Prime Minister’s comments and opinions are not only inflammatory, divisive, shockingly discriminatory and Orwellian in nature, but also appear to reflect those of his government in Westminster.

We trust they do not reflect those of the Senedd.

The Prime Minister’s comments also reveal a lack of foundational understanding. The Prime Minister shows a remarkable lack of understanding of law, especially considering he is a barrister. One doesn’t “opt out” of the school system as if that is the default setting. Legally, as the responsibility for education lies with the parent, not the state, one has to opt out of home education if wishing a child to be educated at school. If so, the parent has only delegated the task of delivery of education, as legally the parents remain the ones, not the state, who are responsible for ensuring that education is suitable. Despite being a barrister, it would appear his ideology of state over parents has impaired or obscured his grasp of the law on this point.

The Prime Minister is also talking above his level of knowledge, for example in the somewhat confusing and misleading use of the term “homeschooling” as opposed to the more appropriate term “home education”. Use of the term “homeschooling” is more correctly used to refer to provision by councils when a child is still on the school roll, for example during lockdowns in the Covid pandemic. The use of this term could be considered to reflect a limited and inexperienced perception of home education as “school-at-home”. It could also reflect a lack of engagement with actual, “real life” home educators.

It would appear that the Prime Minister and his government at Westminster’s desire to make things “tougher” for parents has obscured his ability to appreciate the contradictions of advocating “integration” on one hand, whilst on the other hand promoting isolating and separation of children from parents and families both for their education and for their main cultural and belief-system influences.

The Prime Minister conveys a preference for “integrating” children into systems run by government employees rather than integrating them into their families and communities.

The Prime Minister’s comments also raise a key and very obvious question – what is the connection between his government’s plan for home education and their PREVENT agenda?

So, the CWS Bill isn’t really about safeguarding children, as Welsh Labour would appear to have been told by Westminster. It’s about social engineering, about the state not families being the ones who influence a child’s upbringing.

The only common factor between what Welsh Labour have seemingly been told is the reason for the CWS Bill, and what the Prime Minister, the head of the Government at Westminster (where the Bill was constructed and written without Welsh input) has said is the actual reason, is the underlying message – don’t trust parents and families, treat them with suspicion.

Surely the people of Wales deserve better than this?

Surely the Senedd should be advocating for families in Wales, be led by the people of Wales and not the other way around?