Lawyers have criticised the proposed Education Bill, saying it doesn’t comply with the Human Rights Act.

Law firm Quinn Legal was instructed by Tristam Llewellyn-Jones and Voirrey Baugh to consider the extent of the Bill compatibility with the Human Rights Act 2001.

Mr Llewellyn-Jones, who recently appeared in front of the committee examining the Bill, and Mrs Baugh both home educate their children.

Lawyers looked at the sections of the Bill that relate specifically to home educating,

Mr Llewellyn-Jones highlighted several of these during his appearance before the committee and how they would change from the 2001 Act.

Under section 24 of the 2001 Act, it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure their child of compulsory school age to received a ’suitable education, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise’.

Where a child does not attend a regular school, the parent must notify the department of the ’arrangements made for a child to receive an education’.

If it appears to the Department of Education, Sport and Culture, that the child is not receiving a proper education, then the department can ask the parent to prove that they are.

If this is not done, the department can issue a school attendance order (SAO), forcing the child to attend a state school.

powers

In July 2017, the DESC confirmed it has never been required to use these powers.

Some of the key changes highlighted by Quinn Legal were:

â?¢Downgrading the weight to be attached to parental wishes

â?¢The imposition of a duty upon a parent of a home educated child to provide the DESC with any information requested

â?¢The change to the applicable test to reversing an SAO

â?¢The increase of the maximum penalty for breaching an SAO increased to custody/level five fine

â?¢The imposition of a duty upon DESC to carry out assessments of the educational development of home educated children

The lawyers said that these contravene article 8 of the HRA, as set down by the European Court on Human Rights, of the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.

They added: ’The Supreme Court has acknowledged generally, when considering article 8, that: "Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way" (The Christian Institute and others v Lord Advocate).

Quinn Legal said DESC had justified the changes as being a ’press social need’ and the ’safeguarding risk of isolation from professionals’.

However, it said the DESC’s own figures on SAOs ’clearly demonstrate the DESC’s negligible requirement to use its existing powers under the EA ... ’and do not suggest a ’pressing social need’, indeed they suggest quite the opposite.

evidence

Mr Llewellyn-Jones noted this in his evidence, asking with the DESC providing no evidence to the contrary ’why are we sitting here’?

He also denounced the idea that children could become ’invisible’ in a small community, saying: ’They’re not invisible, they’re with their parents.’

And he said the department was creating a ’controlling regime’ despite ’the statistics showing there is no problem’ and that home educated children are at no more risk than any others.

Mr Llewellyn-Jones added: ’We are talking about giving arbitrary powers to a department that has nailed its colours to the mast, it does not like home educators.’

In its conclusion to its legal opinion on the Bill, Quinn Legal said: ’We have concluded that, as drafted, the key proposals set out above do not comply with Article 8(1), Article 9(1) or Article 14 of the ECHR.’