The Full Story? Misleading facets of the latest WG statement on the CWS Bill

It has come to our attention that the Welsh Government (WG) have in February of this year published on their website a justification of their attempt to “piggyback” onto Westminster’s Children’s Wellbeing and School (CWS) Bill.

This statement as come to our attention only now, and only though the diligence of caring families in Wales, because of the remarkable lack of engagement of the Welsh Government with the people of Wales on this attempt, especially with the families most impacted by the measures they seek to impose.

Thus, given the significant time constraints with less than two working days until the vote on the CWS at the Senedd on the 17^th of March, this is a short evaluation, critique, and where required rebuttal of the Welsh Government’s statements and claims.
Their statement can be found HERE:

There is much to be said about what is missing from this statement.

Most especially – the voice of the child.

Including the right to use that voice to say “No”.

And the right to be asked what they think about such measures.

Not after the fact.

Not on how what has already been decided may or may not be tweaked slightly.

Or does the WG only welcome the voice of the child if that voice says what they wish it to say, or when it is convenient?

What are the issues and problems with what is said in this WG statement?

Yes, discussions had started long before others in the Senedd or the people of Wales even knew about these, let alone be involved. The majority of Senedd members had not been aware of Welsh Government’s intention to “piggyback” (to quote the Attorney General and LJCC) onto what had been put through the House of Commons as an England only Bill until the same day the amendments were laid at Westminster.

The LJCC also were able to establish that:

Therefore, “the provisions were introduced at the final Stage of House of Commons consideration, so there’s been no opportunity for MPs to really seriously scrutinise these provisions. It’s very much a Report Stage, it’s not a scrutiny stage”. The LJCC added that “obviously, nobody in the Senedd has had the opportunity to scrutinise them either”, commenting that the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education hadn’t “been scrutinised to justify that”.

The Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education had to admit that she “recognise(d) that the way that this has been done does impact on the scrutiny to date”, that she “recognise(d) that, from a committee scrutiny point of view, it’s not an optimum situation”.

The same Cabinet Secretary had to agree with the chair of the LJCC that their “previous mutual experience had been to find secondary legislation inadequate for proper scrutiny of legislation”, with the lack of sufficiency of secondary legislation as a process for due scrutiny being raised at another point by a further member of the LJCC.

The Cabinet Secretary admitted that she and her aides “had very scarce information on the Bill up until its publication in December” and that “we only saw the detail of the Bill just after Christmas”.

The Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education also stated that the Welsh Government could only keep the Children’s Commissioner for Wales “informed of our plans as far as we were able to, bearing in mind the very late information we had on the legislation” (at the Second Reading at Westminster).

The LJCC highlighted the juxtaposition between the claims of the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education that she and her department “have had a very good relationship with the UK Government in terms of developing the policy” and the observation of the LJCC in relation to what Westminster had actually put into the Bill that “you seemed surprised or you didn’t have the detail”.

Excuses and reasons for not informing the Senedd earlier were explored by LJCC including revealing how the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education appeared to be basing her explanations on what she had been “told”.

It was claimed by the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education that “confidentiality” and “sensitivity of the issues” were the reasons why she and her aides were not more informed or involved. This seems a *remarkable excuse for a Cabinet Minister*, given the number of staff members and civil servants of a whole range of levels of seniority or otherwise at the Department for Education in Westminster who would have been involved in policy development and drafting of such very extensive legislation.

The Welsh Education secretary said that “hopefully” there would be “no surprises” in how the Bill would change in Westminster, indicating, as elsewhere in the disclosures of the meeting, the lack of involvement of Wales in the development of the policy and legislation

The main reason for “piggybacking” onto a Westminster Bill seems to be given by the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education as “lack of time” at the Senedd, of the Senedd being too busy with other legislation. Other legislation seems to have taken a far higher priority for Welsh Government than legislation on the wellbeing and education of children of Wales.

However, the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education also had to admit that secondary legislation, with the required consultation process, was not a quicker or less demanding way to bring the desired legislation into place, in admitting to “capacity issues arising from dealing with the secondary legislation associated with this legislation”.

The LJCC highlighted that the issue appeared to be the lack of capacity of the Welsh Government, not that of the Senedd, and that any perceived lack of capacity of the Senedd should not be used as an excuse for not informing or engaging with them.

The LJCC observed that “because without having any conversations with anyone in the Senedd, your Government can’t really form a view as to what the capacity of the Senedd is.”, with the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education demonstrating that the concept of lack of capacity of the Senedd seemed to be based on supposition, stating that “we are in the last year of the Senedd, so there are bound to be capacity issues within the Senedd as well, I think”.

Please read more concerning facets about the lack of involvement of Wales in this Bill, as revealed by the LJCC, HERE:

The Welsh Government have taken a “blanket approach” to the Children Not in School Section of the CWS Bill, seeking to appropriate all clauses except one small amendment that would be the only one to allow any level of accountability for the actions of council staff.
Please read more on that missing amendment HERE

There are not “loopholes in legislation”. There are fundamental rights that are protected in legislation to safeguarding children and families, to safeguard all the people of Wales.

And legislation that protects the rights of children and families is there for a reason.

There are significant issues with the range of measures within the Bill that are listed by WG, with no hint of any problems or unintended consequences of these in this statement. Therefore, especially if eligible to vote on this LCM at the Senedd, please consider the issues with each of these in turn, including through the attached information,

WG claim the measures of this Bill are part of ongoing policy development, but this represents a major policy U-turn.

WG previous admitted that to the Senedd that such “registers” were a safeguarding risk due to being a potential deterrent to engagement with statutory services.

The then Education Secretary highlighted the key safeguarding issue with that proposal, telling the Senedd, regarding the concept of:

“a compulsory register that would potentially criminalise parents if they failed to register”

that

“This element of compulsion could have the unintended consequence—the very real unintended consequence—of driving those parents further away from engagement with statutory services”

It is also important to consider the ineffectiveness of this measure.

If there are any who already committing serious criminal offences such as child abuse that carry heavy custodial sentences would either not be deterred by threats of fines for noncompliance or making mistakes about a register.

Nor would any neglectful parents be likely to be concerned about clerical duties like telling the LA their child should be on a register.

Either way, “registers” would be remarkably ineffective in such cases.

Whereas the vast “vast majority” if not all of home educators where there are no causes for concern would be profoundly impacted and treated with innate suspicion.

But the Welsh Government are now portraying what they previously had established as a safeguarding risk as if it is a safeguarding measure.

Please read more about this policy U-turn, and the significance of it HERE.

This carries many unintended consequences, and unnecessarily so. There are already powers and means of redress of “illegal schools”, which are not considered a significant issue in Wales.

The measures in the CWS Bill in relation to external educational input create a significant deterrent to provision of educationally enriching experiences by others outside the family home.

The measures are thereby being counterproductive to the stated desire of home educated children being “seen” by others outside the home.

It also carries financial implications, with the increased costs of related administration tasks, alongside the threat of fines for any mistakes or errors in provision of information, likely to be passed to families and thereby make such provision less accessible.

There are considerable issues of consent and data handling problems in association with this, including when consent is not given for data to be shared by any parties involved.

And the only means of redress for providers who believe they have been fined inappropriately? To those who have fined them.

These issues are explored in aspects of articles HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE.

Councils, who are responsible for providing school-based education, are never going to be an impartial body in admitting that home education would be better for a child than the services they are meant to be providing.

There are many problems with this proposal – please read HERE to understand these further.

WG state that “Local authority consent before a child can be deregistered from a special school is already a requirement in Wales.”

This is not quite correct.

Yes consent is presently needed in such a circumstance, BUT this “must not reasonably be withheld” and the only criterion for consideration is suitability of education.

The Bill changes this profoundly.

There is no “must not be reasonably withheld” criteria. The council are now not only to consider educational provision BUT are deemed to be the ones to act in child’s “best interests”. Therefore, they can refuse consent regardless of how excellent the educational provision by families may be, based on such an ambiguous and arbitrary personal belief.

Furthermore, when consent is refused, parents cannot reapply for another 6 months. This is new.

No means of redress or accountability for mistakes and errors, as with all the other measures in this Bill.

So children are left trapped in educational provision that is unsuitable or inaccessible.

Parents are left liable for fines and prosecution for nonattendance.

This removes the abilities of parents to act in their children’s best interests.

It also deters families who find the provision of state education inadequate from trialling periods in “special schools” as they would then find themselves trapped in having to continue with these, with deregistration at least obstructed and potentially blocked.

Please read more about this HERE.

The Bill does not and cannot make it officially mandatory for families to have to meet as that would be an infringement of human rights and a legal minefield

So instead it says that don’t have to meet but if you don’t the LA can start legal proceedings against you.

As if that makes such visits of strangers into the family home a free choice.

As if that creates informed consent.

Coerced behaviour is not consent

Effectively forcing entry into private family homes for intrusive conversations with parents and children, purely because of personal lifestyle choices.

This is normal healthy loving families who are seeking to advocate for, nurture and protect their children.

That is hardly positive engagement.

That is coercive control

Surely the Senedd cannot find this acceptable?

And how damaging such visits can be.

Please read the accounts of personal experiences and perspectives of home educators HERE, on how damaging this would be to the wellbeing of so many children, the intrusion of their safe space, the anxiety and fear of a stranger “judging” and of the risk of being sent to school against their will. Read also of the negative impact this would have for many on their willingness and capacity to engage in the learning styles that are most suited to them. Yes, there are many accounts in that report, but it is incomprehensible to consider voting to approve such a measure without at least “listening” to these voices and appreciating their experiences first, without a willingness to “walk in their shoes” to understand the impact.

And please read HERE for more information on the concept of coercively engineered home visits

And therein lies one of the greatest concerns.

The use of Henry VIII powers.

The attempt to persuade the Senedd to vote on something when so much of it is not known or established.

And already there are statements in the Bill allowing LAs and Secretaries of State (or Welsh Ministers) to essentially add whatever they want to the requirements of those measures.

So the measures in this Bill are not lawful boundaries, they are the tip of an unseen unmeasured, unevaluated iceberg. And we know how dangerous they can be, even to unsinkable ships.

Local authorities have requested”…

This presumably refers at least in part to the WG commissioned evaluation of the efficacy of their EHE guidance.
Not very impressively for what was meant to be an evaluation of efficacy of measures in relation to home education, no home educators were allowed to be involved. Instead, this was a selection of comments by council staff which were not tested or evaluated, and which demonstrated an alarmingly discriminatory and concerning tone and approach towards law-abiding families.

It is not exactly an informed, considered and tested evidence base.

Please do read further HERE on why.

The measures of course represent a profound shift in balance of power between families and the state – with only one and half working days until the vote in the Senedd there is hardly time or space to explore the profound implications of this. Which is of course why such a vote should not be as rushed as this one has been, and why this, if countenanced, should be through a process of Wales-specific primary legislation to enable full consideration of such significant ethical and moral implications.

There are already processes and legislation to enable consideration if educational settings need legislation. “Illegal settings” are not a significant issue in Wales, and processes and legislative powers already exist to deal with them should they occur.

The statement of “the current issue whereby local authorities cannot tell if children are receiving a suitable education” is untrue.

Parents are the determiners of suitability of education and that lawful position still stands even if the CWS Bill were applied as the section of the Education Act confirming this is not repealed or amended. Alongside this, human rights legislation such as the UNCRC confirms the primacy of parents and family in the life of the child, and clearly depicts the role of the state to be supportive of that primacy and reactive only if there is a need.
Should councils make informal enquiries about educational provision of home educated children, a suitably experienced person is fully able to consider evidence provided by families as a written response to those enquiries, just as easily if this is communicated in writing than in voice.
Indeed, providing information in writing allows a more considered and balanced response, and families can request to meet with council staff should they prefer it.

Parental word is evidence in a court of law, and therefore it is sufficient evidence if council staff were to have reason to believe a child is not in receipt of a suitable education.

The statement “the current issue whereby local authorities cannot tell if children are receiving a suitable education” has an unspoken implication that is openly voiced in the WG – commissioned evaluation of their guidance, that parents cannot and should not be trusted.

This is a shocking stance for a government to take, especially as those parents form their electorate.

Surely the Senedd cannot support such a stance.

It is also a stance of highly questionable lawfulness.

It is worth remembering that there are already 4 KC opinions on a range of aspects of this Bill in preparation for judicial reviews. Please read more on these HERE.

Does the future Welsh Government really wish to become entangled in such expensive and time-consuming litigation, especially over measures that were designed in Westminster and not by them?

“currently parents can refuse to meet with them… This has become more of an issue in recent years because some home-education support groups in Wales actively advise home-educators not to meet with their local authority”.

Note the terminology used – not “decline” to meet, but “refuse” to meet in response to what is legally a request.
This is mirrored in the terminology WG have previously used with the former CCfW labelling responsible families who exercise lawful rights as “active refusers”, with complaints about families knowing and following their lawful rights and duties, as documented in the chronology of engagement with WG and analysed HERE

Such terminology is mirrored even further in the derogatory terms used by council staff in the WG-commissioned evaluation, such as :

Those who exercise lawful rights are repeatedly called “resistant” or “resisting”.

If they respond appropriately and responsibly to enquiries from the council in writing, or do not take up offers of voluntary support, they are incorrectly designated “refusing” to “cooperate”.

The same report cited repeated use of the derogatory and discrediting term “adversarial” by council staff to describe families trying to engage about processes and policies being implemented in relation to them.

This may give the reader some indication of just one of the reasons why many families wisely decide to keep communications in writing, even when staff appear pleasant if meeting,
Further reasons are explored in the survey of home educators experiences and perspectives in relation to LA conduct and WG policy, especially in section B.3.1.

It would be interesting to see if WG have any statistics regarding the claim that parents declining offers to meet with council staff has become “more of an issue in recent years” or not.

It would also be extremely helpful for the WG and the reader to consider why parents decide to communicate in writing rather than accept a meeting, and why home education groups have come to the conclusion that whilst it is for each family to decide for themselves what is the most appropriate way to respond to any informal enquiries from the council about their educational provision, that is it generally considered safer and most appropriate to do so in writing.

WG have shown no interest in consideration of the reasons for such opinions and choices by home educators.
Our recent survey of the experiences and perspectives of Welsh home educators in relation to LA conduct and WG policy gives some insights, including into the experiences of councils overstepping existing lawful remits. This can be found HERE, with a condensed summary HERE

Another survey published only yesterday of the information that Welsh councils have in the public domain on their approaches to home educators in their areas also reveals the frequency of misinformation and inappropriate approaches and conduct.

Parents can deregister children from school at any time, quite rightly, as these are their children. However, this does not mean that others are powerless if they have concerns about this step. If there is legitimate reason to believe a need for social services input because of concerns about the safety of the child, the powers and indeed the duty already exists to inform them.

That does of course add the question as to why they were not informed previously if that is the case, but if there were a suddenly developing situation of concern, then there are already powers to engage the relevant services who are appropriately trained.

And if there were already concerns including SS input, then notification of deregistration, which is what is meant to happen under present practice, would be the key opportunity for those services to reconsider the situation and re-evaluate the level of support or intervention that that family may require.

Keeping children in school where signs of abuse have not been acted upon appropriately is not keeping them safe. This was so tragically seen in the case of Sara Shariff. If the appropriate steps had been taken on deregistration, then there would have bene the perfect opportunity for the appropriately trained staff to re-assess and intervene.

Deregistration becomes an opportunity for appropriate, targeted safeguarding steps when existing powers are used correctly.

A key part of the measures WG seek to impose from the CWS Bill is the consideration that councils act instead of parents to determine what is in the best interests of a key group of children. Apart from the ethical and moral implications of this, there are significant concerns about the lack of impartiality, with councils in so doing thereby having to admit that their school provision is not acceptable or adequate. Councils are not impartial. Likewise, councils are generally not in favour of alternative educational approaches that home educators often come to favour. School-centric biases and discrimination are highly likely to bear weight in such decisions

It is not usual to hear statements from managers within councils that schools are the best place for children, indeed we have even heard such discriminatory statements from Welsh cabinet Secretaries. But there are no mechanisms for independent appeals, complaints, mediation, advocacy or tribunal services when discrimination or bias, or lack of understanding, or miscommunications, or any other factors trigger inappropriate decisions.

It is worth noting that present Cabinet Secretary for Education admitted in a recent meeting of the CYPEC at the Senedd that

“Local authorities are not as good as they should be at self-evaluation”

In her appearance before the LJCC, The Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education repeatedly conveyed an implicit belief that the Bill affords improved safeguarding, even though she gave backing to this Bill before being aware of its content.

A somewhat Freudian slip in that same committee meeting may have revealed something of institutionalised discrimination or personal bias that same committee meeting, with the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for Education describing deregistration from a school roll as “removing from education” rather than removing from school.

Social services already have the powers needed to “see and speak to home educated children” if there is a need. They also have the appropriate training for dealing with sensitive visits and engagements, including when these are non-consensual.

It is folly to believe that sending staff without such extensive training and experience into non-consensual home visits, which allegedly are about a child’s education, will be safe or effective as a means of detecting abuse or neglect. Please do read more HERE for a critique of the lack of logic of such a proposal as a means of safeguarding.

“do not slip under the radar of professionals”, “kept out of sight of professionals”.

But the risk that WG claim that the CWS Bill will reduce or prevent is t exactly the risk that would be caused by two of the key measures that WG seek to impose – in CME databases and in the CWS Bill.

(1 ) CME databases. The GMC and others have repeatedly warned of the risk of this mechanism – of non-consensual datasharing from primary healthcare sources being a deterrent and obstacle to engagement with primary health services. The WG response to this was absolutely minimal and unacceptable – considering it not a significantly important risk and saying that families that were concerned about data sharing could just use A&E instead of GPs, opticians, dentists and other primacy healthcare provision.

The other key aspect of this point that WG have failed to acknowledge is that is not just whether or not people feel confident to access free NHS healthcare, but how confident they feel in being able to openly disclose when doing so when they believe that confidentiality is impaired. These risks were explored in the research report Confidentiality and Respect (a report that WG have not acknowledged or responded to).

(2 ) Mandatory registers. WG previous admitted that these were a safeguarding risk due to being a potential deterrent to engagement with statutory services as explored above.

“Local authorities lack powers to see and speak with home educated children”.

This is not correct. Social services have wide ranging powers to do so when required, and these powers are held alongside accountability practices and safeguarding measures including appropriate thresholds for when safeguarding becomes an issue for the council rather than for parents, plus extensive training and experience required for those involved in such situations.

WG are repeatedly conflating safeguarding assessments and consideration of education.
Parents safeguard children.
Safeguarding is an issue for councils when appropriate thresholds are reached

The Welsh Government omit to mention that a legal rebuttal was submitted to them challenging the foundational principles behind their policies on EHE in the former Children’s Commissioner for Wales’ rationale for “seeing” the child, confirming the incorrect use of the UNCRC in this. WG also omit to mention that they refused to meet with the team involved in that rebuttal or to respond to it. That rebuttal was submitted in at the start of the present administration to provide accurate information in relation to any future attempts to produce guidance in accordance with the former CCfW’s stated wishes, but its conclusions were ignored in the subsequent development and drafting of the 2023 guidance.

This statement refers to two children who it states have died where home education was in their consideration an aspect.
The standardised copy and paste Welsh government response letter that was circulated recently named three children.

One was Dylan Seabridge – where he was known to social services as concerns had been raised that were not followed up on. Social services already had sufficient powers to intervene in response to such concerns.

Secondly was Sara Shariff, who was not in Wales but again where concerns were very well known to social services and other agencies and where there were multiple missed opportunities by such agencies to act on known concerns.

Thirdly was another poor child whose needs and concerns were well known to the appropriate agencies who failed to utilise existing powers to intervene and follow up on concerns. That child was not even home educated, where she was still on the school roll but kept at home due to the government’s own social isolation measures during the pandemic.

The inappropriate use by WG of such tragic cases of shortcomings of agencies to use existing powers is explored further HERE.

The key message is – if there are concerns it is social services who already have the powers and skills to intervene.

What services do not have is unlimited resources.

Focusing what resources are available on following up such known needs is far, far more productive and beneficial to children.

You don’t make it easier to find a needle in a haystack by making the haystack bigger.

There is no point wasting time and money on surveillance, “oversight” and “tracking” of normal law-abiding families.

“Add more oversight” and “track” children.

“Add more oversight” –

But education is parental responsibility and families do not co-parent with the state.

Improve child protection – where do we start with this! There are already powers to protect children if and when they are used correctly, and the Bill adds increasing safeguarding risks to children. Please read more HERE for example.

“track children not in school”.

Does anyone else find this rather chilling?

Parents are responsible for children.

Home education is not a safeguarding risk.

There are already powers to help and address families where there are safeguarding concerns wherever the child is educated, these powers simply need to be used correctly, and resources not diverted away from these much-needed departments to “track” and “oversee” normal healthy families.

“take steps if children are not receiving a suitable education”

Those powers already exist! And they are already used disproportionately, inappropriately and some would consider coercively.

Plus that is not the only way that existing powers are used inappropriately and disproportionately, as considered HERE and HERE

Giving views doesn’t mean they will be listened to.

Giving views – AFTER legislation passed.

The WG also depict what they so remarkably describe as “extensive engagement” with home educators on policy development

To briefly address each of these in turn:

2018 and 2019 – “national meeting and regional “table talk” sessions.

2018 – only maximum of two people per county allowed to attend and they were not allowed to speak as representatives of others.

Reports of those who attended these sessions in both 2018 and 2019 typically commented that these were poorly organised, rushed, that their concerns were not listened to or noted, for example deliberately stopping discussions on the more contentious areas of the consultation, or more frequently that they were not given the opportunity to express concerns or any views that were contrary to the aims of WG. It was noted that coordinators were seen to write down responses of council staff but not necessarily those of home educators, with one attendee also commenting that their coordinator refused to do so when asked to.

Accounts included of attempt to separate children from parents and council staff then asking the children leading questions about their own home education experience, and of council staff but not home educators being invited to join WG representatives for a free lunch to continue their conversations.

Questions were felt to be very directed, to be only the ones WG wished to be answered, with one participant subsequently commenting “Sort of along the lines of ‘you are going to die, would your preference be hanging or drowning?’“.

Participants expressed regrets at not putting complaints in writing at the time, with attempts to complain in person at the time not being noted in writing. An account of first-hand experiences, anonymised to protect those who attended, was provided with their consent for WG at a later date to address the lack of actual engagement and counter the depiction of these as positive engagement.

2019 and 2020 consultations

WG omit to mention that responses to both consultations were overwhelmingly against the measures but that this did not change the direction of their policies, despite a “significant number of the many responses” raising what the then Education Secretary described as “complex technical, policy and legal matters which require careful consideration”.

The 2020 consultation, regarding measures based on non-consensual data sharing from healthcare sources, was run during the peak of the first wave of the Covid pandemic, when health care professionals who would be so impacted by these ethically highly questionable proposals were somewhat otherwise engaged. Requests from home education groups for extensions to the timeframe because of this were initially refused with staff disagreeing there was relevance, until a short extension was eventually granted. Round tables cancelled due to covid and not rescheduled, although the effectiveness of these is highly disputable as explored above.

Please do read this article, “When is a Consultation not a Consultation”, written at the time of the first-round table meeting, to further explore the lack of true engagement even in organised “round tables”.

May 2022: Welsh Government meeting with Families First in Education.

This was one short meeting initiated by home educators as a fact-finding exercise regarding what the new administration were planning in relation to home education. The minister again declined to attend, only members of staff who were relatively new in post were present. These aides were very limited in the information they gave on already planned policy, only giving intimations towards the end of the meeting of what they may or may not have been planning. They did not agree to further requests to meet to explore those intimations or plans, or to provide further information. Home educators in attendance were not left with the impression that the department would consider changing their intended plans, regardless of what evidence, information or perspectives those with lived experience provided.

May 2022: Minister for Education and Welsh Language meeting with ‘Education Otherwise’.

Our understanding is that there was not meaningful engagement, that the perspectives and experiences of home educators were not utilised to direct policy or development of guidance.

This is the only meeting we know of by a Minister for Education with home educators for many years.

We know of no other meeting with a Welsh Minister for Education during the time period where it is claimed by WG that there was extensive engagement, despite numerous requests for such a meeting from a range of sources.

WG conveniently omit to mention that Education Otherwise had to subsequently initiate legal action because of overstepping by WG guidance published the following year.

June 2023: online engagement session for home educators facilitated by the Children’s Commissioner for Wales.

This was a limited online webinar meeting, where many who wished to attend were not allowed a space. where home educators were told, not consulted with, about measures the WG had already decided they would be enforcing regarding them.

January to April 2024: consultation on the Children missing education database regulations.

WG omit to mention here that responses to this were overwhelmingly against what WG were proposing. These were not only objections from the key stakeholders (home educators) but from professional organisations such as the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association, Med Confidential, Defend Digital Me and others.
These objections and concerns were not used to influence policy or implementation, and WG continued with their original plans and intentions .

May 2024: regional child friendly sessions on the children missing education database proposals.

This was held AFTER the consultation closed and only in response to many complaints that there had not been a children’s version of the consultation that was available to home educated children (only a commissioned survey that had been used for school children). There were only two sessions, which were geographically limited,
attendees were not allowed to submit children’s consultation responses that home educators had designed unless they attended in person,
and attendees were told that any responses their children gave during these would not be included in the consultation analysis anyway, as it had now closed.
Attendees attempted to raise informed concerns about the proposed databases but did not feel these were taken into account.

A number of complaints were submitted to Welsh Government about the consultation process, with the groups submitting these considering the responses to not address the points of complaints. The Welsh Government would not engage further on these points or meet those who were raising concerns about the process.

Subsequent requests for clarification about the implementation of the database pilots did not provide clear explanation to address the questions and were subsequently met with responses that the Welsh government had “nothing further to say on the matter”.

Is a statement that the present Cabinet Secretary for Education has ironically previously made on the floor of the Senedd.

Yet this is the opposite of the experience of home educators in Wales under the present administration.

And confidence of families in Wales in the likelihood of being heard is now even lower, given the tone and content expressed by council staff about them in the Welsh Government commissioned evaluation of their EHE guidance. Please read more about the poor methodology and extremely concerning tone and content conveyed HERE.

(1 ) Only half an hour of time allowed at Plenary for scrutiny, debate and voting. the Welsh Government originally thought 15 minutes would have been enough. On a bill that even the Cabinet Secretary for Education who is seeking to push forwards this vote at the Senedd described to the LJCC as:

“very broad and wide-ranging legislation” which “isn’t without its challenges.

(2) The English impact assessment has been considered “not fit for purpose”

We in Wales have our own legislation on ALNs, our own care system, our own education system, our own approach to family and safeguarding issues. We also have the pilots of CME databases running at present. Assessments that apply in England, even if they were fit for purpose, do not apply well to Wales.
The present Children’s Commissioner for Wales has highlighted concerns about the absence of a Welsh Children’s Impact Assessment at this stage, stating that,

“as our Senedd prepares to debate the Legislative Consent Motion on the bill, I have also urged that a full Children’s Rights Impact Assessment of the bill’s implications for Wales should be published.”

Appropriate procedure for an impact assessment as part of an LCM would include involvement of the affected community in considerations of the impacts on them.

There has been no attempt at this in Wales.

(3) When appearing before the LJCC, the Cabinet Secretary for Education also admitted that there had been no evaluation of the costings and financial implications for Wales, months after making the decision for these clauses to apply to Wales. She promised her department would therefore provide a “full, detailed cost analysis”, but this would be in the future as part of developing subordinate legislation.

Thus, information about the financial implications and consequences is not made available before asking the Senedd to vote appropriate these wide-reaching clauses to Wales It is worth noting that the English child impact assessment considered there would be no increased financial provision to such wide-reaching and extensive measures, and that existing resources would have to absorb the costs, without specifying the extent of these.
This is another key criticism of the measures in the Bill – diverting scare time and resources away from children who need input and using them instead for surveillance and monitoring of loving healthy families

Hardly scrutiny.

Hardly sufficient scrutiny for any legislation.

But for English-based legislation about the wellbeing of children in Wales?
Most certainly not.

Repeated information in a long read version

“The inclusion of Wales in a UK government bill”