On 28th January 2026, the Bishop of Manchester spoke in a debate on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill regarding regulation of home education, and moved his own amendment on mitigation “of adverse impact on institutions providing religious instruction, but not wider or general education, as identified in the Equality Impact Statement.”
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I will be very brief. It is an old, apparently African, adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is no less true for that. What that captures in a few words is that raising a child is a balance: a partnership between the parents on the one hand and the wider community on the other. I think that is what we are trying to get at in this group of amendments: what are the appropriate powers for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents?
It is a long-standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home-educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting them in a place where they are potentially at risk and at danger then clearly concerns must be raised. Having listened carefully to this debate, I will, if they are pressed to Divisions, support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Amendment 121A and maybe later in Amendment 131A. They are probably as nuanced as we are going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad balls for which we should not be setting the field.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: 175A: Clause 37, page 83, line 42, at end insert—
“(fa) an institution—(i) that is only providing religious instruction or guidance,(ii) where parents or guardians of attendees have registered at their Local Authority that they provide suitable out-of-school education separate from or in addition to any attendance at the institution, and(iii) where the institution demonstrates to the Local Authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures;”Member’s explanatory statement
This Amendment seeks to mitigate the adverse impact on institutions providing religious instruction, but not wider or general education, as identified in the Equality Impact Statement.
My Lords, this amendment is a repeat of one that I tabled in Committee, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford spoke in my absence. I am deeply grateful to him, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marks of Hale, who have added their names to it on Report.
My concerns with the Bill in its current form relate to those noted in the equality impact assessment, which singled out and named the particular issues that might arise for the Haredi Jewish community. As a Lord spiritual, I see my role as including speaking out when members of another religious community’s beliefs and practices are at stake. Among several groups within Judaism, the practice for boys—it is just boys we are talking about here—during their teenage years after their bar mitzvahs, is a combination of home schooling alongside religious instruction, the latter being provided by a yeshiva. At present, yeshivas are not treated as educational institutions, but the Bill makes it likely that they will be in future.
We need to reflect that we are legislating at a time when, after 7 October 2023, Jewish communities here in the UK, and in many other parts of the world, feel particularly threatened and vulnerable. The steep rise in antisemitic crimes is making some people I know who have been long committed to Britain wonder whether they are still welcome and safe in the UK. New laws that threaten their long-standing traditions simply play into that fear. The Jewish community—I went to school among Jewish boys—is a precious and vital constituent of British life. I sincerely believe that we must make every possible effort to allay their fears.
In working on this amendment, I have become more aware than ever that there are different voices and practices, even among the ultra-Orthodox communities. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but those I have met with have given me assurances. For example, they have no problem with the institutions that their boys attend being in scope for safeguarding oversight and inspection. I am assured that the theology of these groups means that those who study their faith at a yeshiva are not being radicalised and are not drawn to political extremism. Indeed, the very opposite is true: they are members of a deeply law-abiding community. Many who come through this combination of home schooling and religious instruction emerge as excellent citizens, well equipped to flourish in British society and to become entrepreneurs, business leaders and assets to our community.
I am grateful for the conversations that I and noble colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—it is good to see him looking fully recovered after his surgery before Christmas—have had with civil servants and Ministers since Committee. That has significantly cleared the ground and resolved a number of issues along the way. These conversations have explored considerable detail. Some were about when exactly boys are expected to attend a yeshiva, during what would otherwise be normal Monday to Friday school hours. Others were about what precisely an institution that comes under the regime set out in the Bill will be required to include in its teaching and work. I am grateful for the assurances we have received that there is no intention to require such bodies, which are not equipped for it, to comply with the national curriculum.
Some of the groups I have met or corresponded with are concerned that, if a carve-out is not in the Bill, there are risks that secondary legislation will not provide sufficient assurance. They fear that a future Secretary of State would be free to make regulations that would, in effect, outlaw their way of life. I have listened carefully to those concerns; I understand their fears—my amendment would allay them.
However, it is the very complexity of the issues that has led me to conclude that these matters may be better dealt with through a period of careful consultation with those affected, prior to regulations being laid. To that extent, I have several questions for the Minister—I sent them to her yesterday—that I hope she will be able to answer in responding to this debate. Subject to that, I expect to be able to withdraw my amendment, as I have come to think that getting the regulation right on these matters of detail may be the better way.
First, can she assure the House that there will be ample time for consultation ahead of any regulations being issued, and that the groups referred to in the equality impact statement—of whom I have spoken this evening—will be engaged with, listened to and heard?
Secondly, can she affirm that the Bill does not require the same regulations to be applied to all institutions that fall under its remit? What may be appropriate for an acting college might be very different for a yeshiva. If that is correct, can the Minister assure us that the avenue of bespoke arrangements for particular classes of institution will be fully and openly considered and explored?
Thirdly, can she confirm that regulations should be based more on the whole lifestyle of the children involved, rather than being narrowly focused on particular times of day and days of the week? These divisions do not always carry the same status in some of our minority communities. The boys I am speaking of are not allowed on social media or on the kind of devices that while away the time of many of our teenagers.
Finally, will she agree with me that due attention must be given in any regulations to the teachings of faith communities regarding sensitive matters, such as relationships and sex education, so that young people are equipped to live in a pluralist society, without being told that their faiths and beliefs are wrong or somehow not British? I beg to move.
Extracts from the speeches that followed:
Lord Marks of Hale (LD): My Lords, I support Amendment 175A. The Government and the Secretary of State for Education in particular have rightly been vocal in confronting antisemitism in education, but that commitment must extend beyond condemning violence or bans towards Jews. The Government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people and then ban or close down their faith institutions.
The Government make no secret of the fact that Clause 37 consciously seeks to close down or entirely alter yeshivas. In their analysis of the Bill since its launch, the only faith community they ever mention is the strictly Orthodox Jewish one. The Bill leaves no lawful space for long-established religious institutions, which provide only religious instruction and operate alongside registered home education.
Yeshivas are safe and safeguarded institutions. They are not schools. They do not provide academic education and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose. They exist to inculcate a lived faith. That some noble Lords may raise an eyebrow at that purpose says more about the distance of our own society from faith traditions than about the yeshivas themselves.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab): The Bill is not trying to abolish yeshivas; that is not the intent of the legislation. I join both speakers so far in saying that I cherish and welcome the fact that we are a country that values education for all children and allows people of all faiths to reflect that faith in their own education. I have, sometimes at my own political expense, defended the state system, which has Roman Catholic schools, Church of England schools and many other schools. Politically, there are many people who think that we ought to not have faith schools at all. I have always defended them, because that is an important tenet of a free society, and I value the contribution they make to our lives.
I feel the same about people of any faith. This is not about the Orthodox Jewish faith. The amendment could be used by people of any faith to start a school and have 10 hours a day of religious instruction and home education in the evening. That point is very clear.
However, I am opposed to the way some faiths are organising their education at the moment. Without rehearsing the arguments, it comes down quite simply to this: if a child, maybe under 11, is in a yeshiva or any other school—but the yeshiva has been the one that has been mentioned—from 8 am to 6 pm, I do not believe that they can be home educated effectively in the evening. I do not think that is what we are about. If we take faith out of that and think of the needs of the child, we cherish our differences, but we are only a cohesive society if we cherish the things that we hold together.
One of the “samenesses” of our society is that we believe in the right of a child to have a broad and balanced education. I do not see how, in this structure, with yeshiva from 8 am to 6 pm and only religious education, sometimes not in the English language, then home education from 6 pm onwards, we are delivering that to those children. It is as simple as that. I have met people who have been educated in the yeshiva movement. They would not describe it as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester described it. It is the same as any other school. There are people who like it, people who do not like it, people who say it has served them well, people who it has not served well. It is as simple as that. Let us not go down this line because we think it is one form of education that everybody cherishes and wants to preserve. There is as much of a difference of opinion in this as there is in anything else.
Lord Lucas (Con): This Bill exemplifies how we are setting clear expectations of the standards that we should set for people who choose to educate their children outside the school system. We should not be ashamed of that. This is an honourable and right thing to do. My main answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is that, if they are not achieving home education, they are in trouble. There must be home education which is up to the standard we think it should be. If not, it will be in contravention of this Bill.
However, that does not appear to be the problem, at least with the Haredi communities that I have been in correspondence with. We have principles—and they have principles—about how children should be educated. The Prime Minister and others in government have made much of their respect and care for our Jewish communities. It would not be consistent with those statements to tip hundreds of families within the Haredi community into conflict with the state and courts without doing our best to reconcile their views on education and ours.
However, tipping them into conflict is what this Bill in its raw form does, as the Government’s own impact statement accepts. The Haredi community, for all the differences between its ancient traditions and our secular ways, is entirely worthy of our care and respect. It is law-abiding. It makes a positive contribution to our economy. Its children lead productive and fulfilling lives. There is clearly a lot of good going on.
We should therefore step back from the punitive approach that this Bill allows for and enter a process of building a mutual understanding. What does Haredi education achieve in practice? What exactly are their religious red lines? What aspects of Haredi education do we want to see improved? What is the best way of getting that? We have clearly put the Haredi community, or substantial parts of it, in a state of fear. The Government are pushing through this Bill unamended, asking the Haredi community to trust in the department’s good will to devise regulations it will be able to work with. This surely is the time for a clear statement from the Minister that the Government are committed to reaching an outcome that allows both sets of principles to be observed.
Lord Storey (LD): My Lords, faith schools play an important part in our country’s education and are to be valued, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly said, we also believe that all children should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum. If we accommodate changes for one religious faith group, that should be available to any faith group or religious group that wants the same. We have, as a country, probably created one of the most successful multicultural, multifaith communities in the world. We should cherish that, but we should also be aware of the dangers that potentially lie ahead.
Baroness Barran (Con): I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we had a fervent debate in Committee, where the case was made for the precious nature of Haredi traditions but also for the importance of avoiding a two-tier system of education; and that the reality for some young men was that they felt their experience at a yeshiva had been deeply damaging.
My noble friend Lord Lucas suggested that the department pick a time period to resolve these issues; that seems a very constructive suggestion. It feels as though this amendment has the elements in it for a way through this very long-running debate, given that it includes a commitment both to suitable out-of-school education and to safeguarding issues being addressed. I acknowledge the deep concerns that were expressed in Committee and I hope very much that the Minister finds a way through this, not least for the Haredi community, who are obviously deeply anxious about it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab, DfE): As other noble Lords have done, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward Amendment 175A. Of course, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee and debated extensively then. For reasons of time, I will not repeat that debate.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith-based education across a range of faiths in our country. My noble friend is right, and she has championed and supported this, even in the face of opposition. I assure the Haredi community that it is neither a denigration of their faith nor of the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope they feel able to be, and remain, a full part of our community.
It may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 37 and the Government’s general approach in this area. In so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that, if a setting is providing full-time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings the regulatory regime found in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
I reiterate that it is categorically not the Government’s intention to close down yeshivas. This is the same ready-made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. Let me be clear: there is nothing in this clause that, in itself, requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do, in broad terms, is subject impacted full-time settings to a regime of registration and the need to comply with prescribed standards and inspection against those standards. While people running educational settings should already have an idea of whether they provide a full-time education, based on an ordinary understanding of those words,
the Government will produce guidance so that it is clear whether a setting is being brought into regulation by this measure.
In addition, the right reverend Prelate asked for confirmation that the regulatory regime found in the 2008 Act permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting. I can confirm that this is the case and that Ministers have not yet decided which standards would be prescribed. Any decision will only follow extensive engagement and consultation. This is likely to take a minimum of several months and will take into account all relevant views, including those concerning the appropriateness of teaching relationships and sex education in regulated settings.
I have attempted to set this out plainly and I hope to have provided reassurance, because I am aware that, although not specifically designed for yeshivas, the clause has caused concern among some Haredi Jews. I hope that this explanation makes clear the Government’s intentions and the practical effect of this clause and that, on that basis, the right reverend Prelate feels able to withdraw his amendment so that we can continue constructive discussions while ensuring that the intentions of this clause are realised in its implementation.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part. I will not delay us long. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that there have to be some limits to what a faith community can do. I believe we can achieve that if we work hard over the next few months on how these kinds of institutions are going to be regulated. We can make sure we are providing space for bona fide organisations that are clearly having the outcome of producing wholesome young people without opening the floodgates to all sorts of negative patterns of upbringing that we might wish to be wary of. I am hugely grateful for the reassurances received and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 175A withdrawn.
The Church of England in Parliament 
You must be logged in to post a comment.