The Bill That Broke Itself: How the House of Lords Dismantled the Schools Bill

A Committee Debate That Struck at the Core of Government Overreach

Yesterday in the House of Lords, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill faced its fiercest scrutiny yet—and emerged battered at its core.

From across the benches, peers from all political backgrounds joined in an uncommonly unified critique of a Bill that promised child welfare but delivered a far-reaching expansion of state power.

The central message: this was not reform. It was overreach. And the Lords weren’t having it.

Parental Choice and the ECHR: “Not the State, But Parents”

Lord Carter of Haslemere opened his remarks with clarity and conviction:

“For me, part two should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children. Not the state, but parents.”

Citing “Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights,” Lord Carter continued:

“...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.”

In his conclusion, he offered a chilling summation of Part Two:

“As it stands, therefore, part two of this Bill does not, for me, enhance children's wellbeing, which is what the title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.”

Faith-Based Education: Undermining Religious Traditions

In a further sharp rebuke, Lord Carter defended the UK’s rich tradition of faith-based education:

“What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But part two would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings.”

He warned of an ideological shift:

“It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice, threatening our diverse landscape so much admired across the world.”

Home Education: A Presumption of Suspicion

Baroness Barran raised fundamental concerns about the Bill’s proposed register for home educators:

“There has been no piloting, no safeguarding measures, and a disregard for the strong outcomes already being delivered by many home educators.”“Regarding home education, the proposed register misses both ends of the spectrum. At one end, the scheme, as drafted, will not adequately protect the most vulnerable children. At the other, it is unnecessarily intrusive, requiring disproportionate detail from parents who pose minimal risk to their children.”“Most critically, it fails to address the needs of parents who never intended to home educate but feel they have no choice due to inadequate provision for their child with special educational needs.”

She concluded:

“We get a set of rules in relation to home education that neither keep the vulnerable few safe nor respect the rights of the majority.”

Centralisation and the Myth of Progress

Lord Agnew of Oulton delivered a blistering critique of the Bill’s structural flaws:

“This is just another example of what sounds like a convenient political slogan bearing no relation to what is going on in the real world.”“The people who will suffer are the children in the poorest communities... I thought that a Labour Government sought to represent these communities, but I see nothing in this cheap political manoeuvre that will in any way help those disadvantaged children.”“The Government should not play fast and loose with the futures of millions of children, who get but one chance for their education.”“I urge Ministers to show some humility... If we are to be ignored, rest assured that the avalanche of amendments will continue, as I, for one, will not go down without a fight.”

A Vision for Transparency and Respect

Lord Moynihan of Chelsea underscored the need for clarity and accountability:

“My noble friend Lord Balfe, in pleading for outcomes, put his finger on what is wrong with a Bill without a purpose clause.”“Whatever outcomes the Government wish to achieve, let us know what they are, let us be able to test the Bill against those proposed outcomes.”

Lord Lucas issued a direct challenge to the transfer of parental responsibilities to the state:

“In English law, parents are responsible for their children’s education. In the Bill... the Government make substantial moves towards transferring that responsibility to the state.”“The state should be respectful and humble in its dealings with parents who educate their own children... If they are doing well, why should the state not applaud that?”

He was particularly unambiguous in his remarks concerning Haredi families:

“They know, I am sure, that that educational system has good outcomes: fully functioning people, albeit very much in their own tradition.”“Do the Government agree that these families are not neglecting their children’s learning but providing learning in keeping with their own long-established ethnic background?”“Do the Government agree that yeshivas are not schools and should not be assessed as such?”“What is the Government’s purpose, in the Bill, towards this community? At the moment, it is obscure.”

Conclusion: The Bill in Tatters

What began as a discussion on technical clauses turned into a constitutional reckoning. Clause by clause, the Bill was stripped of credibility. The Lords did not simply object. They dismantled.

Tuesday’s debate may come to be seen as a turning point—not just in the future of this Bill, but in how Britain understands the balance of power between state and society. In chamber after chamber, voices once dismissed as fringe found their rightful place at the centre of a national reckoning.

This Bill was not simply challenged. It was intellectually, ethically, and practically dismantled. The Government may yet try to press ahead. But the message from the Lords is clear: there is no mandate for this machinery of control.

Not now. Not here. Not ever.