Make More Noise!...........PLEASE!!!!

This is Caroline Flint MP (Labour) talking at the committee meeting on Thursday.
 There were lots of important points raised at this meeting, and lots of important points ignored, but I wanted to focus on Caroline Flint because she, and other gutless Labour MPs like her are a problem, and a BIG problem at that.
 (you can read the rest of the committee meeting transcript here)

"Caroline Flint: I will try to keep my comments brief because I know that the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has done a lot of work in this area and wishes to speak.

When I started to consider this part of the Bill, I wondered why we should not know the position of all our children who, in any other circumstances, would be in our state education system. However, after reading the documentation that was sent to us and listening to the concerns of one of my constituents, I now have some doubts. Gordon Whitehead has brought jobs into Doncaster. He supports learning and opportunities for young people, and wants to offer apprenticeships and opportunities in IT through his company. However, he has huge concerns for his own home-educated children because of what the propositions in the Bill will mean for him and other families who home educate."

Good start huh? She getting it. She's been listening to people and is not afraid to stand up and say her opinin has changed, she might have been wrong in her initial assumptions.


"I do not want to repeat everything that the hon. Member for Yeovil said, but I have some concerns about a process through which, for understandable reasons, there is a desire to know that if children are not in school, they are being home educated. Needing to know that information has turned this proposal into something that is bureaucratic and overburdening to families and local authorities. Those authorities are not confident that they can carry out the Government’s ask on this matter.


To echo the hon. Gentleman, I have read the statement from the Government about what is not expected of parents who home educate. However, although earlier paragraphs say that parents need to produce only two pages on what they provide, we then find that they will be asked to explain their philosophy as well as other things. I find that very confusing. We are able to read all this documentation and to hear from witnesses, but I wonder how such information will be related to local government officers on the ground."

Still good. She finds her party's proposals confusing, she's looked at them, analysed them, she can see it just won't work. It doesn't add up.


"In submissions provided by parents who home educate, we have found out about—I say straight away that I am sure that this does not represent all local government officers—individuals giving personal rather than objective points of view when they go into the homes of people who home educate. It might not be my personal desire to educate my children a certain way, but I recall one example of a local government officer referring in a report to incense being burned in the home. The family quite rightly questioned the report, saying, “What has that got to do with anything? People use fresheners in their homes all the time.” To be honest, however, there was in that case perhaps implied criticism that the family were rather “brown rice and sandals” and hippy-ish, and the very mention of incense being burned conveyed an approach with which the local government officer did not agree."

Still good. She has read the submissions from the people this will actually affect. She has listened. She understands the problem of being inspected subjectively.


"The Committee was provided with case studies of child protection, some of which I found rather wanting. There was an example of a woman in Gloucestershire—I think she was a foster mother—who was prosecuted for cruelty to children. If I have understood it correctly, the education services had annual contact to monitor the education at home. Having visited that home on an annual basis, the education service came to the conclusion that things were generally satisfactory and that no child protection concerns were noted, although perhaps that says something about whether the service was looking Column number: 494correctly. However, I could not see how anything in the Bill’s proposals would have made any difference in that case.


Another example was of a young person who sadly died. The serious case review stated categorically that the mother


“complied with all statutory requirements in relation to children in elective home education. She co-operated with visits from the London Borough of Enfield Education Department”


twice in one year. The following year, it was identified that


“The visiting officer had no concerns about the family or their circumstances, and was satisfied”.


What seems to have come out of those various examples linked to child protection is that, even in such circumstances, those on the ground have responded to the Government by saying, “We need something bigger. We need something more overarching to deal with these issues across the piece.”"

Still good. She knows the whole child protection angle was nonsense. She knows that these prposals would not have made a blind it of difference to those tragic, but nothing to do with home education, cases.


"I am not sure whether the Bill strikes the right balance. Finding a way through this matter is important, as is the language used. We have heard valid points about whether something is seen as a registration or an application.


The law is also called into question. We have received numerous submissions highlighting the role of the local authority in providing those services that it is required to provide, including such things as the national curriculum, child protection and Every Child Matters. However, whether we like it or not, as far as I understand it, the law is different when it comes to provision provided by parents. The locus for the local authority in that case is very different, and I wonder whether—presumably the legal opinion in my hon. Friend the Minister’s Department has given views on this—it might be open to legal challenge by other quarters in relation to the state’s role in providing education, and the ways in which it expects education to be provided when parents choose to do that.


I do not think we will resolve the matter today, but I hope that my hon. Friend will show a willingness to listen—I am sure she will—and engage in trying to find a better way forward. Another approach might be to make an offer that opens up dialogue between those in the community who home educate and local authorities. If there was money available to do that—money seems to be available to train local authority officers to inspect and understand what they need to inspect—it would be better used when linked to some sort of notification system with better co-operation."

Still good. She doesn't think it can be resolved today. She wants to see another, better, way forward.


"During the evidence sessions—I think that Mr. Badman referred to this—we heard positive examples of forums involving home educators that already worked with a local authority. I do not want anyone to misinterpret this, but some of those in the home-educating community might be better gatekeepers for information about possible legitimate concerns."

Still good. She understands that the people best placed to be talking about home education, are home educators.


"Mr. Stuart: The right hon. Lady is giving a thoughtful speech. She is sending a much-needed message from this place that the voices of home educators have at least been listened to, because many of them feel that Members are deaf to what they say. Her fellow Labour members of the Select Committee came to precisely the same conclusion about improving the provision—that was Badman’s No. 1 identified need—and then seeing what happens. We should work on a voluntary basis with families before imposing such draconian legislation. If there was a need, and if there was no other way of tackling it, civil liberties and other issues could be put aside. Initially, however, the offer should be to work with families. I hope that the right hon. Lady’s words will influence the Minister.


Caroline Flint: I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government want to take aspects of what Mr. Badman has looked at, and what the Select Committee has said, and try to make them work. My worry for the Government is that, for a number of different reasons, there has been a breakdown in confidence and trust on the issue. I am therefore worried about whether we will be able to bring various parties together to discuss the issue productively. I think that the Government have the best intentions. Part of the challenge, to be fair to them, arises because they are being lobbied by a number of other organisations and individuals to do something about the matter, but this is about getting the balance right. We have heard about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but there are different ways to resolve the issue and address the problems that have caused concern."

Still good. "there are different ways to resolve the issue".


"Mr. Gibb: I take the point that the Government are being lobbied—I am sure that that is one of the burdens of office—but the Badman report’s original terms of reference imply that the Government were originally being lobbied to look into safeguarding, rather than the education issues. It now seems that the issue has been turned on its head and that the education issue is the Government’s focus. Who is lobbying the Government from that angle?


Caroline Flint: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer that question. There is an issue about how safeguarding and education have somehow merged into each other. Part of the problem might be that some of the civil servants are trying to find a way to argue the issue out by bringing that into the debate. I do not know the answer.


There must be a way forward that can bring the relevant communities together, whether they are parents, local government or the Department. I hope that we can find a way forward, because I am concerned that we will otherwise end up with something that cannot be delivered on the ground and that will create division when people should be coming together, and I am sure that that is not what this Committee or the House want to achieve.""

Still good you think? This is a Labour MP telling the committee that she thinks her party has got it wrong, that they need to find a different way forward, that this will not work....

This is Caroline Flint MP (Labour) voting with her Party to keep everything in the Bill just the way it is...

NOES

Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Flint, rh Caroline
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Linton, Martin
McCarthy, Kerry
Prentice, Bridget
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Waltho, Lynda

and again...

Division No. 14]

AYES
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Flint, rh Caroline
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Linton, Martin
McCarthy, Kerry
Prentice, Bridget
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Waltho, Lynda

and again...

NOES

Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Flint, rh Caroline
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Linton, Martin
McCarthy, Kerry
Prentice, Bridget
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Waltho, Lynda

and again...

Division No. 16]

AYES
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Flint, rh Caroline
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Linton, Martin
McCarthy, Kerry
Prentice, Bridget
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Waltho, Lynda
We cannot rely on common sense to prevail. We cannot rely on justice to prevail. We cannot rely on other people having the guts to stand up for what they believe in. But we must. We must keep making noise. If you are one of those people who thought that a law this awful would never get passed, IT IS UP TO ITS THIRD READING WITHOUT AMENDMENTS!!!

Sign this petition. Share this petition. Make your MP aware of this petition. Write to a Lord.